**5. Conclusion**

A fundamental consideration is that there are two types of learners when it comes to the field of architecture: the future experts, learning the methods, gaining the knowledge, skills and expertise in the field - *learners in architecture* and the non-experts, lay public, learning to understand cause and effect relationships in space, regarding built, cultural and natural environment, gaining an insight into the field, and into the expert logic - *learners about architecture*. Efforts of one group cannot compensate for the efforts of the other when dealing with built environment and spatial interventions as they more often than not, when not in sync, result in misunderstanding, misinterpretation, contradictions, which arise in response to physical manifestations discernable in spatial problems and unsustainable practices.

Both groups of learners can benefit from architectural e-learning, each group requiring a particular set of e-learning environments, tools, contents for suitable learning settings and positive learning outcomes. While some aspects are shared among the groups, such as blended learning, constructivist principles and project based learning, the use of visual messages, visuospatial multimedia learning principles, and the use of e-learning platforms, other aspects are particular for each group of learners as a whole and yet more particular within the same general group given the specific targeted population (as in the case mentioned: primary education pupils or a group of people who want to build their own dwellings in the near future, or public gathered around a specific spatial interest, etc).

teachers and the interface a tool that they could use for teaching (among many other tools on offer i.e. R.A.V.E. Space project suggestions: Demsar Mitrovic et al., 2007). They also suggested and insisted on more open system that would allow them to insert their own contents (graphics, photographs, texts) related to local environment and its specifics (which also proves that they understand the notion of acting locally and that understanding/explaining sustainability through the cause-and-effect relationships in our immediate surroundings is of the essence). The time constraint is beyond the topics of the chapter but it has to be emphasized, the range of topics to teach is so vast and the competition of themes so fervid that teachers feel an enormous time pressure, mentioned very often, much more than questioning of their competency to teach so specific topics

At the institutional level – the management of the particular schools involved has been a very understanding and cooperative body to work with on the topics of spatial sustainability, often asking for more contents and pedagogical contributions that we were able to provide. The Ministry of the environment and spatial planning on the yet higher institutional level has expressed an interest to implement the interface nation wide at primary schools but the discussions did so far not progress beyond the agreement that it would be a useful contribution provided it surpasses the prototypical phase. The talks however resulted in discussions about the necessity to look into the spatial sustainability issues, common curricula and education through a project in a Targeted research

From the technological perspective the potential improvements point in the direction of adaptability, networking and wider variety of topics covered with multiple tasks per one topic, offering more possibilities to show complex issues and asses the gained knowledge, more feedback to learners informing them whether they are on the right track, how good

A fundamental consideration is that there are two types of learners when it comes to the field of architecture: the future experts, learning the methods, gaining the knowledge, skills and expertise in the field - *learners in architecture* and the non-experts, lay public, learning to understand cause and effect relationships in space, regarding built, cultural and natural environment, gaining an insight into the field, and into the expert logic - *learners about architecture*. Efforts of one group cannot compensate for the efforts of the other when dealing with built environment and spatial interventions as they more often than not, when not in sync, result in misunderstanding, misinterpretation, contradictions, which arise in response to physical manifestations discernable in spatial problems and unsustainable practices. Both groups of learners can benefit from architectural e-learning, each group requiring a particular set of e-learning environments, tools, contents for suitable learning settings and positive learning outcomes. While some aspects are shared among the groups, such as blended learning, constructivist principles and project based learning, the use of visual messages, visuospatial multimedia learning principles, and the use of e-learning platforms, other aspects are particular for each group of learners as a whole and yet more particular within the same general group given the specific targeted population (as in the case mentioned: primary education pupils or a group of people who want to build their own dwellings in the near future, or public gathered around a specific spatial interest, etc).

have they done and challenging them with the complex game-related tasks.

(Demsar Mitrovic et al., 2007).

**5. Conclusion** 

programme scheme (Zupancic et al., 2009).

Following the development of e-learning (and distributed learning) *in* and *about* architecture through the literature (i.e. CUMINCAD, a database of resources on the topic of Computer aided architecture and education) and recent publications, it is apparent that the practice has not yet established a foothold in architectural schools' curricula, nor found a place in general education (very few reports and even fewer scientific publications on the topic). However we can still discern two patterns of slow but gradual introduction of e-learning into architectural education: one approaching e-learning in architecture holistically – developing the whole system, including curricula, contents, tools (or concepts of them) and e-platforms (i.e. showcase example in the chapter VIPA: Kipcak, 2007; IMLAB: Gatermann & Czerner, 2003; etc), the other tackling specific and individual issues of e-learning, either developing prototypical tools (i.e. showcase example in the chapter Eco Spatial Interface: Juvancic & Zupancic, 2008; virtual design studios – VDS, etc) or integrating and combining the existing ones into systems. Neither of them is yet in the phase where we could claim that e-learning is institutionalized. It seems that as in other fields, e-learning in architecture is caught between the resistance to curricular change and the established ways of traditional teaching4. Mizban & Roberts, (2006) have analyzed e-learning in architectural education and established that a majority of cases in their analysis have been technologically driven – as a 'test bed': trying out the advances in ICT and applying them to architectural teaching or trying out new ways of supporting creativity or simply to develop students' ICT skills - and did not origin from pedagogical needs. On the other hand, some joint projects, due to their nature of distributed partners, teacher, students and teaching involved, introduce e-learning without intentionally emphasizing it. Archi21 is an example of ongoing European project (Hunter et al., 2011) that fosters Content & Language Integrated Learning (CLIL). The content in this case is architecture. The (envisioned and in some cases already executed) learning has all the characteristics of blended learning, with LMS, virtual environment (as a place to learn- and collaborate- in) and other e-communication tools at their core. It seems that such interdisciplinary endeavours are a short-term roundabout to gradual and persistent integration of e-learning in architecture.

In more general, lifelong education the hindrance is not so much avoidance of e-learning practices (the use of Moodle is quite wide spread already, with certain examples of educational interfaces already embraced), but the lack of architectural and spatial sustainability related topics in the learning programmes.

Throughout the chapter we have highlighted the benefits of e-learning *in* and *about* architecture, summing them up as: the ability to promote different types of collaboration, enhance students' set of skills, facilitate a flexible access to multimedia, educational resources anytime and anyplace (Mizban & Roberts, 2006), but also helping teachers introduce topics they are not expert in to non-expert public, enhance the experience of learning, introduce and present complex cause and effect spatial relationships that we are unable to grasp with the traditional teaching tools, simulate and test the processes prior to their physical manifestation, help in efforts for sustainable building practices and support informed decision making.

There are also barriers that hinder the widespread of e-learning *in* and *about* architecture. The main are the lack of pedagogical demand for them as observed by Mizban & Roberts

<sup>4</sup> There are exceptions to this rule in fellow field of design, where the university and consequently also the design programme within is based on the distributed (e-learning) principles that stand at its core of teaching and is thus institutionalized. Such an example would be The Open University, UK

E-Learning in Architecture: Professional and Lifelong Learning Prospects 181

Greeno, J.G. (1998). The Situativity of Knowing, Learning, and Research. *American* 

Hunter, M., Chase, S., Kligerman, B. & Zupancic, T. (2011). ARCHI21: Architectural and

Juvancic, M. & Zupancic-Strojan, T. (2008). Towards effective interfaces for general

*techniques,* ISBN 978-0-9541183-7-2, Antwerpen, Belgium, September 2008 Juvancic, M., Zupancic, T. & Hocevar, M. (2011). Towards effective interfaces for non-

Kipcak, O. (2007). The VIPA Project. What is VIPA? In: *VIPA virtual campus for virtual space* 

Manovich, L. (2002). *The language of new media,* reprint ed., MIT Press, ISBN 978-0-262632-55-

Marjanovic, L. & Svetina, M. (2004). Spoznavni in govorni razvoj v srednjem in poznem

Mason, R. & Rennie, F. (2006). *E-Learning: the Key Concepts.* Routledge, ISBN 0-415-37307-7,

Mayer, E.R. (2005). Multimedia Learning: Guiding Visuospatial Thinking with Instructional

McDonough, W. (1998). Declaration of Interdependence, In: *Dimensions of sustainability:* 

Meskanen, P. (2007). Shaping Spaces; Architecture and Children – Teaching the values of

Mizban, N. & Roberts, A. (2006). The Place of E-learning in Architectural Education - A

Mullins, M., Zupancic-Strojan, T. & Juvancic, M. (2002) Experts and Users Efficiency and

Neville, A. (1999). The problem-based learning tutor: Teacher? Facilitator? Evaluator?

an imprint of Routledge London, ISBN 0-419-23620-1, New York

Design based Education and Practice through Content & Language Integrated Learning using Immersive Virtual Environments for 21st Century Skills, *Proceedings of the 29th eCAADe Conference: Respecting Fragile Places,* ISBN 978-9491207013,

architectural learning: eco-spatial educational interface for pupils, *Proceedings of the 26th eCAADe Conference: Architecture "in computro : integrating methods and* 

professional architectural learning: Architectural educational interface for pupils.

*design provided for european architects*, Marek, C., Edition mono/monochrom, pp. 6-9,

otroštvu, In: *Razvojna psihologija*, Marjanovic, L. & Zupancic, M., pp. 408-427, Znanstvenoraziskovalni inštitut Filozofske fakultete, ISBN 8672071468, Ljubljana Marjanovic, L. & Zupancic, M. (2004). Teorije psihičnega razvoja, In: *Razvojna psihologija*,

Marjanovic, L. & Zupancic, M., pp. 28-63, Znanstvenoraziskovalni inštitut

Animation, In: *The Cambridge Handbook of Visuospatial Thinking*, P. Shah & A. Miyake, pp. 477-508, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-00173-0, New

*architecture, form, technology, environment, culture*, Scott A., pp. 45-55, E & FN Spon,

space to children and youth. *Presented at R.A.V.E. Space Project Final Conference,*

Critical Review, *Proceedings of the 24th eCAADe Conference: Communicating Space(s)*,

Accuracy in the Presentation of Design Ideas Across Networks, *Proceedings of the 20th eCAADe Conference: Connecting the Real and the Virtual - design e-ducation*, ISBN

*Psychologist,* Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 5-26, ISSN-0003-066X

*Javnost - The Public*, accepted for publication in 2012

Filozofske fakultete, ISBN 8672071468, Ljubljana

Ljubljana, Slovenia, December 2007.

0-9541183-0-8, Warsaw, September 2002

ISBN 0-9541183-5-9, Volos, Greece, September 2006

*Medical Teacher*, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 393-401, ISSN 0142-159X

Ljubljana, September 2011

ISBN 3-9500731-8-3, Graz

3, Cambridge, Mass.

New York

York

Haralambos, M. (1989). *Sociology*, Unwin Hyman, ISBN 9788634303872, London

(2006), the rigidity of curricula and inertia – "we have been doing it for years, why change it?" The students themselves often lack the motivation to acquire additional skills required to efficiently work in e-learning environment (students perceive additional learning as extra and non-essential workload). The rest usually consists of variety of technological issues. The systems are staying on the prototypical level, riddled with bugs and technological constraints hindering the usual design process or lacking the functionalities of common tools in use, making expressing oneself more difficult than in traditional learning, lacking the integration, having compatibility issues, problems with communication, bandwidth and simply put: things not working consistently and reliably - in effect, transferring the emphasis from the learning architecture to solving technological problems. All these reduce the motivation of learners and teachers even further. Overcoming the prototypical levels mean also overcoming institutional, investment, ICT barriers and requires a critical mass of teachers and learners seeing the benefits of-, feeling the pedagogical need for- and eventually using the e-learning in architecture.

On the path to maturity, however, there are many opportunities for widening the scope and usefulness of e-learning tools *in* and *about* architecture: introduction of networked learning, adaptive learning systems, extensive usage of graphic capabilities, integration of tools, and more, that the fast technological advance will offer us in the future.

## **6. References**


(2006), the rigidity of curricula and inertia – "we have been doing it for years, why change it?" The students themselves often lack the motivation to acquire additional skills required to efficiently work in e-learning environment (students perceive additional learning as extra and non-essential workload). The rest usually consists of variety of technological issues. The systems are staying on the prototypical level, riddled with bugs and technological constraints hindering the usual design process or lacking the functionalities of common tools in use, making expressing oneself more difficult than in traditional learning, lacking the integration, having compatibility issues, problems with communication, bandwidth and simply put: things not working consistently and reliably - in effect, transferring the emphasis from the learning architecture to solving technological problems. All these reduce the motivation of learners and teachers even further. Overcoming the prototypical levels mean also overcoming institutional, investment, ICT barriers and requires a critical mass of teachers and learners seeing the benefits of-, feeling the pedagogical need for- and

On the path to maturity, however, there are many opportunities for widening the scope and usefulness of e-learning tools *in* and *about* architecture: introduction of networked learning, adaptive learning systems, extensive usage of graphic capabilities, integration of tools, and

Abel, C. (1997). *Architecture and identity: towards a global eco-culture,* Architectural Press, ISBN

Bates-Brkljac, N. (2007). Investigating perceptual responses and shared understanding of

Chou, J. R. & Hsiao, S. W. (2007). A usability study on human-computer interface for

Demsar Mitrovic, P., Miklavcic, T., Resnik Planinc, T., Urbanc, M., Fridl, J., Simoneti, M.,

the Environment and Spatial Planning, 978-961-6392-56-3, Ljubljana Dondi, C., Behnn, E. & Moretti, M. (2004). Why Choose a Game for Improving Learning and

Dondi, C., pp. 20-76, PABST, ISBN 3899671937, Lengerich, Berlin, etc Fischman, J. (2011). The Rise of Teaching Machines, In: *The Chronicle of Higher Education, The* 

Springer Verlag, ISBN 978-3-540-46246-0, Berlin Heidelberg

Birkhäuser, ISBN 3-7643-6659-1, Basel, Berlin, Boston

architectural design ideas when communicated through different forms of visual representations, *Proceedings of Information visualisation 2007 conference*, ISBN- 0-

middle-aged learnes, *Computers in Human Behavior*, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 2040-2063,

Sorn, M. et al. (2007). *R.A.V.E Space: project final report. Raising awareness of values of space through the education process,* Demsar Mitrovic, P. in Rihar, J. (ed), Ministry of

Teaching Processes? In: *Guidelines for Game-Based Learning*, Pivec, M., Koubek, A. &

*Digital Campus*, 8.5.2011. Available from http://chronicle.com/article/The-Rise-of-

4200 *Intelligent Computing in Engineering and Architecture*, I.F.C. Smith, pp. 241-257,

*Proceedings of the 21th eCAADe Conference: Digital Design*, ISBN 0-9541183-1-6, Graz,

Fruchter, R. (2006). The FishbowlTM: Degrees of Engagement in Global Teamwork, In: LNAI

Gatermann, H. & Czerner, J. (2003). Modular E-Learning-Environment for Architecture,

Gauzin-Müller, D. (2002). *Sustainable architecture and urbanism: concepts, technologies, examples,* 

eventually using the e-learning in architecture.

978-0750607902, Oxford

Teaching-Machines/127389/

Austria, September 2003

ISSN 0747-5632

**6. References** 

more, that the fast technological advance will offer us in the future.

76795-2900-3, Zurich, Switzerland, July 2007

Greeno, J.G. (1998). The Situativity of Knowing, Learning, and Research. *American Psychologist,* Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 5-26, ISSN-0003-066X

Haralambos, M. (1989). *Sociology*, Unwin Hyman, ISBN 9788634303872, London


Prensky, M. (2001). *Digital Games-Based Learning,* McGraw Hill, ISBN 978-1557788634, New

Quintana, C., Carra, A., Krajcik, J. & Soloway, E. (2002). Learner-Centered Design:

Rhee, C., Moon, J. & Choe, Y. (2006). Web Interface Consistency in E-learning*. Online* 

Severin, W.J. & Thankard, J.W.Jr. (1992). *Communication theories: Origins, Methods, and Uses in* 

Sherman, W. R. & Craig, A. B. (2003). *Understanding virtual reality: interface, application and* 

Shneiderman, B. (1998). *Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction,* 3. Ed, Addison-Wesley, ISBN 978-0-201694-97-0, Reading Stager, G. (2005). Towards a Pedagogy of Online Constructionist Learning, *Proceedings of 2005 World Conference on Computers in Education*, Stellenbosch, South Africa, July 2005 Stibbe, A. & Luna, H. (2009). Introduction, In: *The Handbook of Sustainability Literacy: Skills for* 

Strojan, T. Z. & Mullins, M. (2002). The Identity of Place in Virtual Design Studios. *Journal of* 

Svetina, M., Istenic Starcic, A., Juvancic, M. , Novljan, T., Subic Kovac, M., Verovsek, S. &

Tos, N. et al. (2004). *Vrednote v prehodu III. Slovensko javno mnenje 1999-2004,* Tos, N. (ed), Fakulteta za družbene vede, IDV – CJMMK, ISBN 978-*3*-901941-23-8, Ljubljana Ucelli, G., Conti, G. & Klercker, A. J. (1999). Visualisation: The Customer's Perception,

Verovsek, S. & Juvancic, M. (2009). Identifying spatial values in the opinions of teenagers.

Verovsek, S., Juvancic, M. & Zupancic, T. (2011). Interpretation Model of Urban Space

von Glaserfield, E. (1991). An exposition of Constructivism: Why some like it radical, In:

Wenger, E. (1998). *Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity*, Cambridge

Zupancic, T., Novljan, T., Juvancic, M., Verovsek, S., Subic Kovac, M., Istenic Starcic, A. &

Zupancic, T., Verovsek, S., Juvancic, M., Svetina, M., Novljan, T., Subic Kovac, M. & Istenic

in Slovenia, *AR - Architecture, Research*, No. 1, pp. 70-77, ISSN 1580-5573

*a changing world*, A. Stibbe, pp. 9-16, Green Books, ISBN 978-1-900322-60-7, Foxhole,

Zupancic, T. (2011). How Children Come to Understand Sustainable Development : a Contribution to Educational Agenda, *Sustainable development*, Vol. 20, No. 20, pp.

*Proceedings of the 17th eCAADe Conference: Computing from Turing to 2000*, ISBN 0-

Coherence, *Proceedings of the 29th eCAADe Conference: Respecting Fragile Places,* ISBN

*Constructivist Views of the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics,* R. B. Davis, C.A. Maher & N. Noddings, pp. 19-29, VA: National Council of Teachers of

Svetina, M. (2009). The concretization of the term sustainable spatial development for the assessment of child and juvenile awareness. *Urbani izziv*, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.

Starcic, A. (2010). Education for Sustainable Development in the Built Environment

*Information Review*, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 53-69, ISSN 1468-4527

*design,* Morgan Kaufmann, ISBN 978-1558603530, San Francisco

*Architectural Education,* Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 15-21, ISSN 1046-4883

*Mass Media*. Longman, ISBN 978-0801304637, New York

Dartington, Totnes, Devon, UK

9523687-5-7, Liverpool, September 1999

978-9491207013, Ljubljana, September 2011

*Urbani izziv*, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 164-174, ISSN 0353-6483

University Press, ISBN 0-521-66363-6, Cambridge New York

1-10, ISSN 0968-0802

Mathematics, Reston

153-163, ISSN 0353-6483

Reflections and New Directions*,* In: *Human-Computer interaction in the new millennium,* Carroll, J. M., pp. 605-626, ACM Press, ISBN 978-0201704471, New York

York
