**4.1 The range of spatial topics to be conveyed to non-experts through e-learning**

Learning *about* architecture can take different approaches. The historic, timescale approach comes first to mind. As it can be insightful and informative it also takes a very long time and a reflective individual to draw conclusions and implications for the present state of affairs in built environments. The historic approach can prove to be burdened with counterproductive issues such as style, taste, etc. that sometimes overshadow the conceptual underlays and bias the perception when looked at from present-centric perspective and context, which is often the case how non-experts react, especially younger generation. Rather than discussing what is tasteful and beautiful, which varies greatly between individuals, societies, cultures and where consensus is very hard to reach (and even if reached does not help much) the topics of what is respectful of its surrounding environment, what is efficient, what is functional can be addressed.

Learning about architecture and its context in the present state, pointing and searching for cause-effect relationships and impacts leaps over the historic perspective but offers the connection to sustainability issues and can address actual and burning spatial problems and practices. Combining architecture and responsible spatial behaviour is ever more viable in the recent push to reduce our impact on the environment. The human need 'to inhabit' (be it in terms of residence, working environment, leisure activities, education) has broad-ranging impact on the environment and can consequently play a major role in sustainable efforts (Gauzin-Müller, 2002). Focusing on the 'inhabiting' also represents a viable and meaningful intersection between architectural practices, emerging and existing spatial problems, the role of actors in space and efforts towards more sustainable development.



There are many interpretations and dimensions of sustainable spatial development and responsible acting in different environments. Some are leaning towards energy efficiency, others focus on natural aspects, and less often the cultural aspects of sustainability are taken into an account: Stibbe & Luna (2009) go a step further, arguing for sustainability literacy skills that foster a deeper look into the social, cultural and economic systems that gave rise to environmental problems. Combining declared attitudes and values into operative, concise, near-everyday-life experience terms ( 'spatial qualities'; see Verovsek & Juvancic,

E-Learning in Architecture: Professional and Lifelong Learning Prospects 171

engagement with the audience, etc. With the introduction of ICT and e-learning their roles and influence change to some extent (i.e. teachers as advisors, mediators, facilitators; Neville, 1999), and while still being important even more 'mediators' that influence the outcome of the learning come into play. Some of them are experts who specialize in ICT or other participants who make specialized contributions (i.e. professional actors for the reenacting the scenes, narrators, who excel in narration, artists and illustrators, who specialize in graphic representations), other mediators are artificial (i.e. graphic user interfaces) and usually come in the form of the learning environment, communication tools, etc. As we are dealing with e-learning, and will later be inspecting educational interfaces that can be used without (or minimal) teacher's involvement, we will be highlighting the later – artificial mediators. The statement should not be understood in terms that teachers are redundant with the introduction of e-learning about architecture or that e-learning for non-experts should follow the path of excluding human mediators (although some experimental practices are leaning in that direction, i.e. Knewton2). In fact the showcase will prove to the contrary – the combination of f2f and ICT – blended learning – gives the best results at the moment. However for the purposes of the research, educational interfaces had to be isolated

as sole mediators for the testing of the different elements and characteristics.

not least, the ICT experts creating the software solutions.

(menus, entry fields, slider, buttons, pointers etc) 'visual' elements (presentations, icons, windows,

system/interaction management elements

descriptions, titles etc)

2 http://www.knewton.com/

contents

The parts can be arranged systematically, similarly to content part, into (visual) *elements* of interfaces and *characteristics* of interfaces the user is confronted with. The table (Table 3) applies to user interfaces and user experience with the system, which we focus on here. Although many characteristics are joined into five bigger groups that encompass the majority of particular characteristics, there are so many found in the literature (i.e. Shneiderman, 1998; Manovich, 2001; Rhee, Moon & Choe, 2006) some overlapping, some denoting similar things with different terminology, the effort to address them all seems futile. The interface characteristics are the ways the user manipulates the contents and the interface, the exchange of information between the user and the system, the ways of modification, the ways of being immersed in his actions and learning environment, etc. While we focus on the interface part of the system and the *learner – interface – content experience*, additional parts of e-learning systems that are not addressed here but are relevant for the other actors involved would include characteristics of: experts, teachers or mediators managing the content - content management systems (CMS), learning management systems (LMS) and their interfaces, administrators managing the networks and support systems, and

**Interface elements Interface Characteristics** 

Table 3. Learner–interface–content experience is dependent on elements and characteristics.

 ways of navigation ways of content

 system openness rate immersion rate and manner

elements

presentation/narration ways of interaction with

2009) and into useful, rounded, concise topics of content demands a systematic approach that on one hand determines the content elements and on the other the aspects/focus through which the contents should be conveyed (Table 2).

Content elements cover topics connected to sustainable handling of space that the experts want to point at, or change behaviour patterns of non-experts to be more in sync with professional efforts. The elements can deal with burning spatial problems - scattered settlements, unfinished buildings, decaying and energy inefficient facades, building on slopes, greenery and housing, etc. Additionally, the elements can warn against harmful spatial trends and practices that will lead to problems in the future. Not least, the elements can consist of individual indicators of sustainable development (i.e. Able, 1997).

When presenting the spatially related sustainable issues the topics can be highlighted through four crucial aspects:


While the characteristics or ways of presenting content elements remain focused around the four points in every situation, the content elements change depending on target population, age and educational structure, local environment and aims the learning strives to achieve. The same principles of presenting spatial issues around four focuses were later also used in the research study, titled "Education on the built environment for sustainable development" (Zupancic et al, 2009), which has been carried out in the framework of the national Targeted research programme Slovenian competitiveness 2006-2013.

#### **4.2 Communication and interface aspects - feedback, multiple-way communication, interaction: luxury or necessity in e-learning?**

As elaborated in the introduction the learning process is, in a way, also a communication process where, in our architectural case, mainly visual messages are exchanged. Dealing with e-learning applications and ICT, where not only pedagogical methods and theoretical approaches apply, but also where the multi-layering and complexity of hardware and software solutions have to be reckoned with, there are many factors that influence the outcome of the learner's experience and knowledge acquired.

Teachers, mediators and experts can and do influence the outcomes of traditional learning by choosing the topics, pedagogical approach, exemplary cases, ways of narration,

2009) and into useful, rounded, concise topics of content demands a systematic approach that on one hand determines the content elements and on the other the aspects/focus

Content elements cover topics connected to sustainable handling of space that the experts want to point at, or change behaviour patterns of non-experts to be more in sync with professional efforts. The elements can deal with burning spatial problems - scattered settlements, unfinished buildings, decaying and energy inefficient facades, building on slopes, greenery and housing, etc. Additionally, the elements can warn against harmful spatial trends and practices that will lead to problems in the future. Not least, the elements

When presenting the spatially related sustainable issues the topics can be highlighted

1. "All sustainability is local" (McDonough, 1998) - the main questions here are: where am I? What natural, cultural and socio-economic environments encompass me? Connect the individual and efforts 'from the doorstep' to broader issues of sustainable development, from top-down to more personalized and on individual actions focused bottom-up

2. Focusing of sustainability around the notion of residing, settling, dwelling, inhabiting this changes the optics of spatial intervening to individual actors, where one easily recognizes himself, pictures oneself in that role. The approach jumps scale from global far away and far above - to concrete, local environment and touches individual

3. Equal treatment of 'tree trunks' of sustainable development, including those that are harder to measure and not prone to statistical analysis, and that are less present in

4. The absence of interference and non-materialization are the interventions that should also be taken into consideration when pondering sustainable behaviour: before the material intervention the questions should be asked regarding its necessity, its timing,

While the characteristics or ways of presenting content elements remain focused around the four points in every situation, the content elements change depending on target population, age and educational structure, local environment and aims the learning strives to achieve. The same principles of presenting spatial issues around four focuses were later also used in the research study, titled "Education on the built environment for sustainable development" (Zupancic et al, 2009), which has been carried out in the framework of the national Targeted

**4.2 Communication and interface aspects - feedback, multiple-way communication,** 

As elaborated in the introduction the learning process is, in a way, also a communication process where, in our architectural case, mainly visual messages are exchanged. Dealing with e-learning applications and ICT, where not only pedagogical methods and theoretical approaches apply, but also where the multi-layering and complexity of hardware and software solutions have to be reckoned with, there are many factors that influence the

Teachers, mediators and experts can and do influence the outcomes of traditional learning by choosing the topics, pedagogical approach, exemplary cases, ways of narration,

peoples' minds or because their characteristics are harder to generalize.

ripeness of available technologies and its scale/range.

research programme Slovenian competitiveness 2006-2013.

outcome of the learner's experience and knowledge acquired.

**interaction: luxury or necessity in e-learning?** 

can consist of individual indicators of sustainable development (i.e. Able, 1997).

through which the contents should be conveyed (Table 2).

through four crucial aspects:

perspective.

everyday actions.

engagement with the audience, etc. With the introduction of ICT and e-learning their roles and influence change to some extent (i.e. teachers as advisors, mediators, facilitators; Neville, 1999), and while still being important even more 'mediators' that influence the outcome of the learning come into play. Some of them are experts who specialize in ICT or other participants who make specialized contributions (i.e. professional actors for the reenacting the scenes, narrators, who excel in narration, artists and illustrators, who specialize in graphic representations), other mediators are artificial (i.e. graphic user interfaces) and usually come in the form of the learning environment, communication tools, etc. As we are dealing with e-learning, and will later be inspecting educational interfaces that can be used without (or minimal) teacher's involvement, we will be highlighting the later – artificial mediators. The statement should not be understood in terms that teachers are redundant with the introduction of e-learning about architecture or that e-learning for non-experts should follow the path of excluding human mediators (although some experimental practices are leaning in that direction, i.e. Knewton2). In fact the showcase will prove to the contrary – the combination of f2f and ICT – blended learning – gives the best results at the moment. However for the purposes of the research, educational interfaces had to be isolated as sole mediators for the testing of the different elements and characteristics.

The parts can be arranged systematically, similarly to content part, into (visual) *elements* of interfaces and *characteristics* of interfaces the user is confronted with. The table (Table 3) applies to user interfaces and user experience with the system, which we focus on here. Although many characteristics are joined into five bigger groups that encompass the majority of particular characteristics, there are so many found in the literature (i.e. Shneiderman, 1998; Manovich, 2001; Rhee, Moon & Choe, 2006) some overlapping, some denoting similar things with different terminology, the effort to address them all seems futile. The interface characteristics are the ways the user manipulates the contents and the interface, the exchange of information between the user and the system, the ways of modification, the ways of being immersed in his actions and learning environment, etc.

While we focus on the interface part of the system and the *learner – interface – content experience*, additional parts of e-learning systems that are not addressed here but are relevant for the other actors involved would include characteristics of: experts, teachers or mediators managing the content - content management systems (CMS), learning management systems (LMS) and their interfaces, administrators managing the networks and support systems, and not least, the ICT experts creating the software solutions.


Table 3. Learner–interface–content experience is dependent on elements and characteristics.

<sup>2</sup> http://www.knewton.com/

E-Learning in Architecture: Professional and Lifelong Learning Prospects 173

much more complex insight into the relationship than possible through traditional means of teaching. Knowledge gained in such a constructivist manner has also a much more durable lifespan than factual learning (Dondi et al., 2004; Prensky, 2001). For the educational software to be successful it also needs to be visually challenging and up to the standards of

**4.4 Networking and collaboration between learners (and teachers) in e-learning about** 

Being able to communicate during the learning process with peers and teachers is an important part of the experience of learning. E-learning *about* architecture should be no different in that sense, facilitating the communication through different ICT possibilities (more integrated into the learning e-learning environment the better). Communicating with fellow learners enriches the experience with the social context (Stacey, 1998 as cited in Mason & Rennie, 2006) and when distance learning this can influence the motivation (Rovai & Jordan, 2004 as cited in Mason & Rennie, 2006) and the feeling of belonging to a group of

While expert e-learning *in* architecture uses the networking and communication possibilities for a crucial collaboration on a common task, simulating everyday experience of working in a team of interdisciplinary experts, the non-expert learners can benefit from networking in another common experience: simulating everyday negotiations and consensus reaching, incorporating the effect of the behaviour of groups and crowds in the decision making process, coming to potential clashes of interests between different users of space and within individual priorities (i.e. economic vs. sustainable, self interest vs. interest of the common good, practical vs. moral). Through that the mediator can emphasize how actions of an individual can influence a wider range of people that are touched through individual's actions and the socio-spatial consequences that ensue. Another option is showing the limitations of individual actions (even sustainable) if the group avoids involvement or acts differently. And yet another is highlighting the force of a joint action in positive and negative endeavours viewed from the perspective of sustainable spatial interventions (i.e. asking students to choose a building spot for their fictional house in an fictional but close-toreality environment, which can lead to dispersed settling and thus showing the

problematical issues or it can be coordinated to more sustainable solutions).

Learners engaging in LLP learning about spatial sustainability and spatial issues differ in several aspects that influence their reference frame, experience, world view, knowledge base, skills and psycho-physical performance. The ones important for our discussion are: i) the age in combination with psycho-physical performance levels (Svetina et al., 2011) ii) level of formal education achieved (Chou & Hsiao, 2007), iii) interests and motivations. Their abilities to read the visual messages and respond in kind also vary, as mentioned earlier (in sub-chapter 2.2). The elements of contents and the use of e-learning tools thus needs to be adapted to the (envisioned, if not known) least able participants in the learning process from the outset. The showcased example presented in the next subchapter focused on specific population and tried to adapt to its awaited specifics. The survey conducted on younger generations that spanned the broader range of ages and levels (Zupancic et al., 2009) about their spatial sustainable awareness is a good example of how to modify the

**4.5 Adaptation to learners and their knowledge level** 

entertainment, social and other commonly used applications.

**architecture** 

learners.

