**4.6 Assessment of knowledge gained**

Referring to (in subchapter 2.2) discussed visuospatial thinking and multimedia learning, the way to assess the learners' understanding is to ask them to use what they have learned to solve a new problem (Mayer, 2005). This principle was used as the assessment tool in the educational interface showcased later in the chapter. From the strict scientific rigour perspective the results can be misleading as the learner's previous knowledge is only assumed and the level of knowing and ability to learn varies among the individuals in a group of learners. The initial pre-testing is a solution to measure the scale of progress made by an individual, however it is impractical and time consuming in usual learning settings, scientific experiments excluded.

When e-learning *in* architecture, the results are often less important than the process of going through the task solving, teamwork motions, etc. Contrary to that, e-learning *about* architecture and sustainable spatial behaviour strives for the results: the deeper understanding of cause-effect consequences, changing of attitudes, shaping of values and redirecting learners away from future harmful spatial practices. The results however cannot be measured in absolute terms – right or wrong – but can be only compared to the best informed and expert, interdisciplinary opinion what the solution of a given task should be. In a sense this represents also a measure of overlapping views and envisioned steps that experts and non-experts share after going through the learning process.

#### **4.7 E-Learning about architecture cannot offer an answer to every perennial spatial problem: the limitations**

Although it seems the (e-) learning *about* architecture is the perfect solution for the prevention of spatial problems and detrimental practices it cannot solve the problems as long as there is a difference between *knowing* and *doing*, different interests of groups and individuals that need to balance priorities that sometimes exclude themselves.

The question about the discrepancy "between words and actions" is certainly an interesting phenomenon of human nature, which is particularly materially expressed in cases of spatial interventions. The reasons for this duality can be found between the awareness of spatial values on a principal level and a different other actual knowledge of every individual, which may differ. One of the view points allows that value formation on a declarative level,

contents in a way that it adapts to different ages (through the questions and manner of questions asked, complexity of language, use of capital letters, depth of questions, etc). The teaching plans often point to suitable manners of how to tackle different issues and hint to base knowledge already acquired. However (in Slovenia) architectural and space related sustainable issues are (at the moment) not to be found there directly but are only tacitly

With the initial and general adaptation to the awaited group of learners set aside, the e-learning tools can offer a 'mass-customization' to individual learners by adapting to the individual learner with the setting of learning pace, introduction of additional contents once the base knowledge is acquired, helping and repeating where the learner struggles, offering an in-depth explanations and so forth (i.e., Knewton as reported in Fischman, 2011). Although the notion is more suitable for expert learning *in* architecture there are opportunities available for that kind of adaptation principle in e-learning *about* architecture

Referring to (in subchapter 2.2) discussed visuospatial thinking and multimedia learning, the way to assess the learners' understanding is to ask them to use what they have learned to solve a new problem (Mayer, 2005). This principle was used as the assessment tool in the educational interface showcased later in the chapter. From the strict scientific rigour perspective the results can be misleading as the learner's previous knowledge is only assumed and the level of knowing and ability to learn varies among the individuals in a group of learners. The initial pre-testing is a solution to measure the scale of progress made by an individual, however it is impractical and time consuming in usual learning settings,

When e-learning *in* architecture, the results are often less important than the process of going through the task solving, teamwork motions, etc. Contrary to that, e-learning *about* architecture and sustainable spatial behaviour strives for the results: the deeper understanding of cause-effect consequences, changing of attitudes, shaping of values and redirecting learners away from future harmful spatial practices. The results however cannot be measured in absolute terms – right or wrong – but can be only compared to the best informed and expert, interdisciplinary opinion what the solution of a given task should be. In a sense this represents also a measure of overlapping views and envisioned steps that

**4.7 E-Learning about architecture cannot offer an answer to every perennial spatial** 

Although it seems the (e-) learning *about* architecture is the perfect solution for the prevention of spatial problems and detrimental practices it cannot solve the problems as long as there is a difference between *knowing* and *doing*, different interests of groups and

The question about the discrepancy "between words and actions" is certainly an interesting phenomenon of human nature, which is particularly materially expressed in cases of spatial interventions. The reasons for this duality can be found between the awareness of spatial values on a principal level and a different other actual knowledge of every individual, which may differ. One of the view points allows that value formation on a declarative level,

experts and non-experts share after going through the learning process.

individuals that need to balance priorities that sometimes exclude themselves.

implicated in them (Zupancic et al., 2010).

also, but have yet to be seen in practice.

**4.6 Assessment of knowledge gained** 

scientific experiments excluded.

**problem: the limitations** 

including their normative function of what is and is not allowed, is often not related with day-to-day priorities. It is furthermore far from the role of a strong motivation force giving energy, wish and inspiration for action. It may occur that the "trained" society is aware of global environmental issues and also strives to act towards decreasing them, but with simultaneous interventions (unintentionally) harms their local environment. (Verovsek & Juvancic, 2009)

The scope of complex relations and intertwinement of cause-and-effect relationships is daunting and needs to be systematically approached not only with the e-learning tools but also with the curricula on levels of formal education, combining the efforts and means to achieve better understanding of our (cultural and natural) spatial environment that we live in and should act responsively and sustainably within its carrying capacities.
