**2. Aspects of e-learning within the architectural domain**

Architectural education is centrally concerned with individual design creativity among its students and encompasses an important aspect of visual acuity or training in interpretation of visual representation. These are aspects of human articulation, neither easily taught in the lecture theatre nor transmitted in the computer laboratory.

E-Learning in Architecture: Professional and Lifelong Learning Prospects 161

process of learning: "If the view is adopted that 'knowledge' is the conceptual means to make sense of experience rather than the 'representation' of something that is supposed to lie beyond it, this shift of perspective brings with it an important corollary: the concepts and relations in terms of which we perceive and conceive the experiential world are necessarily generated by ourselves. In this sense we are responsible for the world we are experiencing" (von Glaserfield, 1991). The instructors primary task is thus to create environments in which

Constructivist models, often used in e-applications and learning – situated learning, PBL and simulation – are very much attuned to traditional design studio learning with the benefits (and disadvantages) of ICT environments and capabilities. While these principles have been embraced in architectural schools, particularly in 'problem-based learning' methods, architectural education has also in the past decades sought to experiment with and apply the tools of information and computer technology. These ICT tools represent a relatively new context in which the architectural creative process is increasingly carried out in project groups rather than by independent designers, affording cross-disciplinary, global teamwork, and which leads in consequence to situations where negotiation is required in exploring alternatives to solve problems, often probing the boundaries between disciplines (Fruchter, 2006). ICT has the effect of bringing together for limited periods of time, previously disparate communities of practice for the purpose of solving particular problems. The focus is shifted from individual learning about practice, to extracting the full potential of learning through practice in a community. As Etienne Wenger has observed, when the core of central expertise held by individual communities of practice meets other communities with their cores of expertise, radically new insights can arise at the boundary between the communities (Wenger, 1998). It is often this meeting of apparently very different ways of viewing the world whereby

In as much as the perspective of learning shifts from the individual to a larger system of the individual's participation in a community of practice, it is more relevant to consider elearning as a situative context of interaction in which individuals participate and coordinate their activities to achieve meaningful objectives (Greeno, 1998). This strategy implies a focus on the informational contents of the activities undertaken, and a study of how such a dynamic system functions. The task of the instructor can on this basis be formulated to be that of facilitating the active membership of a community of practice that engages for a limited time in joint activities with others to create solutions for authentic problems through adaptation, commitment and social relationships. Specifically, the successful development of community of practice requires the provision of guidance and resources that encourage the negotiation by the participants of a joint project through mutual engagement in a wellfunctioning social entity. Thereby, participants are afforded the opportunity to mutually construct meaning through presentations, manipulation of design objects, discussions and interactions which allow them to reach mutual understanding through the interpretations of

E-learning programs which complement or replace traditional architectural education should seek to blend self-study, face-to-face meetings, to stimulate social context and facilitate cooperative work of 'real-life' professional experience. This approach goes beyond merely acquiring knowledge of the technology involved: effectiveness of e-learning is not merely a function of new technology, but rather is achieved through the "adaptation of the learning environment to a changing context which presents new opportunities for an investigation and formation of 'place', as that difficult concept is understood in schools of

the learner can interact meaningfully with a set of 'real-life' challenges.

the creativity of new ideas and solutions is encouraged.

visual and written materials.

architecture" (Strojan & Mullins, 2002).

Education in architecture, be it for experts or non-experts, is also a communication process with an exchange of mainly visual messages. As such it follows (in general) the established Laswell's mass communication model (Severin & Thankard, 1992): *Who? Says what? In which channel? To whom? With what effect?* It is especially useful for articulation of many important aspects of architectural e-learning at the start of our journey and is here used because of its convenient, almost self-explanatory simplicity. 'Who' is usually an expert, a teacher but, as we will see later, can also represent a fellow learner or the learner himself exchanging (feedback) information in the learning process. 'Says what' is the message and in architectural learning it is most probably of a visual nature and of specific content, which has again its implications. 'In which channel', we interpret here as the way the learning is organized (curriculum, learning setting, environment, media used, teaching methods, teaching tools, etc). 'To whom', depends on the targeted learners as discussed in the introduction above, in the distinction between learning *in* and learning *about* architecture. 'With what effect', denotes the learning outcomes and includes the assessment methods. It is now easier to envision the components of the process and our aims to describe them in architectural learning context.

Learning about how to do architecture and how to 'think' architecture requires a great deal of cognitive processing, the manipulation of mental images, understanding of complex cause and effect relationships, functional, technical, performance, aesthetic, cultural and physical aspects. Visuospatial thinking theories are especially suited for the purpose of learning *in* and *about* architecture which both rely heavily on the notion that thinking consists of mental images and principled manipulation of mental images (Mayer, 2005) on the premise that: "a) appropriate visuospatial thinking during learning can enhance the learner's understanding, and b) multimedia presentation can be designed to prime appropriate visuospatial thinking during learning" (Mayer, 2005).

#### **2.1 Blended learning and constructivist approach: a viable solution for learning** *in* **and**  *about* **architecture**

Instead of strictly using *e-* for electronic learning, implying that (ICT) e-learning platform is in the heart of learners' experience, the learning *in* and *about* architecture is more aligned with blended learning practices. Blended learning spans over face-to-face (f2f) and elearning connecting them, combining learning on site with distant learning under the joint name of distributed learning (Mason & Rennie, 2006). The exchange of messages provides the necessary learning environment and scaffolding to higher-order thinking (Slavik, 1994 as cited in Mason & Rennie, 2006). Blended learning with f2f component can produce a stronger sense of community among participants than fully online course (Rovai & Jordan, 2004 as cited in Mason & Rennie, 2006), socio-cultural context for learning environment and helps maintain the link with traditional design studio practices in the field of architecture.

Architectural learning requires a practical component of 'learning by doing', traditionally in a studio environment, through which students acquire experience and knowledge of professional practice in a social context of peers, thus aligning them with the constructivist learning models. This aspect of learning in realistic settings reflects the view of learning as an active construction of knowledge by the learner who makes his or her own sense of authentic tasks set by the instructor. The learner will in theory engage a variety of cognitive processes including processing relevant information, organising that information into coherent representations and integrating these representations with existing knowledge in order to create solutions to the challenges presented. The term 'constructivist' thus refers to the idea that learners construct knowledge for themselves individually and socially in the

Education in architecture, be it for experts or non-experts, is also a communication process with an exchange of mainly visual messages. As such it follows (in general) the established Laswell's mass communication model (Severin & Thankard, 1992): *Who? Says what? In which channel? To whom? With what effect?* It is especially useful for articulation of many important aspects of architectural e-learning at the start of our journey and is here used because of its convenient, almost self-explanatory simplicity. 'Who' is usually an expert, a teacher but, as we will see later, can also represent a fellow learner or the learner himself exchanging (feedback) information in the learning process. 'Says what' is the message and in architectural learning it is most probably of a visual nature and of specific content, which has again its implications. 'In which channel', we interpret here as the way the learning is organized (curriculum, learning setting, environment, media used, teaching methods, teaching tools, etc). 'To whom', depends on the targeted learners as discussed in the introduction above, in the distinction between learning *in* and learning *about* architecture. 'With what effect', denotes the learning outcomes and includes the assessment methods. It is now easier to envision the components of the

Learning about how to do architecture and how to 'think' architecture requires a great deal of cognitive processing, the manipulation of mental images, understanding of complex cause and effect relationships, functional, technical, performance, aesthetic, cultural and physical aspects. Visuospatial thinking theories are especially suited for the purpose of learning *in* and *about* architecture which both rely heavily on the notion that thinking consists of mental images and principled manipulation of mental images (Mayer, 2005) on the premise that: "a) appropriate visuospatial thinking during learning can enhance the learner's understanding, and b) multimedia presentation can be designed to prime

**2.1 Blended learning and constructivist approach: a viable solution for learning** *in* **and** 

Instead of strictly using *e-* for electronic learning, implying that (ICT) e-learning platform is in the heart of learners' experience, the learning *in* and *about* architecture is more aligned with blended learning practices. Blended learning spans over face-to-face (f2f) and elearning connecting them, combining learning on site with distant learning under the joint name of distributed learning (Mason & Rennie, 2006). The exchange of messages provides the necessary learning environment and scaffolding to higher-order thinking (Slavik, 1994 as cited in Mason & Rennie, 2006). Blended learning with f2f component can produce a stronger sense of community among participants than fully online course (Rovai & Jordan, 2004 as cited in Mason & Rennie, 2006), socio-cultural context for learning environment and helps maintain the link with traditional design studio practices in the field of architecture. Architectural learning requires a practical component of 'learning by doing', traditionally in a studio environment, through which students acquire experience and knowledge of professional practice in a social context of peers, thus aligning them with the constructivist learning models. This aspect of learning in realistic settings reflects the view of learning as an active construction of knowledge by the learner who makes his or her own sense of authentic tasks set by the instructor. The learner will in theory engage a variety of cognitive processes including processing relevant information, organising that information into coherent representations and integrating these representations with existing knowledge in order to create solutions to the challenges presented. The term 'constructivist' thus refers to the idea that learners construct knowledge for themselves individually and socially in the

process and our aims to describe them in architectural learning context.

appropriate visuospatial thinking during learning" (Mayer, 2005).

*about* **architecture** 

process of learning: "If the view is adopted that 'knowledge' is the conceptual means to make sense of experience rather than the 'representation' of something that is supposed to lie beyond it, this shift of perspective brings with it an important corollary: the concepts and relations in terms of which we perceive and conceive the experiential world are necessarily generated by ourselves. In this sense we are responsible for the world we are experiencing" (von Glaserfield, 1991). The instructors primary task is thus to create environments in which the learner can interact meaningfully with a set of 'real-life' challenges.

Constructivist models, often used in e-applications and learning – situated learning, PBL and simulation – are very much attuned to traditional design studio learning with the benefits (and disadvantages) of ICT environments and capabilities. While these principles have been embraced in architectural schools, particularly in 'problem-based learning' methods, architectural education has also in the past decades sought to experiment with and apply the tools of information and computer technology. These ICT tools represent a relatively new context in which the architectural creative process is increasingly carried out in project groups rather than by independent designers, affording cross-disciplinary, global teamwork, and which leads in consequence to situations where negotiation is required in exploring alternatives to solve problems, often probing the boundaries between disciplines (Fruchter, 2006). ICT has the effect of bringing together for limited periods of time, previously disparate communities of practice for the purpose of solving particular problems. The focus is shifted from individual learning about practice, to extracting the full potential of learning through practice in a community. As Etienne Wenger has observed, when the core of central expertise held by individual communities of practice meets other communities with their cores of expertise, radically new insights can arise at the boundary between the communities (Wenger, 1998). It is often this meeting of apparently very different ways of viewing the world whereby the creativity of new ideas and solutions is encouraged.

In as much as the perspective of learning shifts from the individual to a larger system of the individual's participation in a community of practice, it is more relevant to consider elearning as a situative context of interaction in which individuals participate and coordinate their activities to achieve meaningful objectives (Greeno, 1998). This strategy implies a focus on the informational contents of the activities undertaken, and a study of how such a dynamic system functions. The task of the instructor can on this basis be formulated to be that of facilitating the active membership of a community of practice that engages for a limited time in joint activities with others to create solutions for authentic problems through adaptation, commitment and social relationships. Specifically, the successful development of community of practice requires the provision of guidance and resources that encourage the negotiation by the participants of a joint project through mutual engagement in a wellfunctioning social entity. Thereby, participants are afforded the opportunity to mutually construct meaning through presentations, manipulation of design objects, discussions and interactions which allow them to reach mutual understanding through the interpretations of visual and written materials.

E-learning programs which complement or replace traditional architectural education should seek to blend self-study, face-to-face meetings, to stimulate social context and facilitate cooperative work of 'real-life' professional experience. This approach goes beyond merely acquiring knowledge of the technology involved: effectiveness of e-learning is not merely a function of new technology, but rather is achieved through the "adaptation of the learning environment to a changing context which presents new opportunities for an investigation and formation of 'place', as that difficult concept is understood in schools of architecture" (Strojan & Mullins, 2002).

E-Learning in Architecture: Professional and Lifelong Learning Prospects 163

the learners. The e-learning platforms, nowadays most often called Learning Management Systems (LMS), come in many varieties, sharing common aspects and elements that are suitable for a cross-section of common e-learning activities and tools for running and managing (blended) courses (i.e. Moodle is a good example applied to many levels of teaching and used for different topics and in different settings). The common and general e-learning platforms provide modular structure to facilitate specific needs and specialization. Knewton (Fischman, 2011) is an example that can take on different contents provided it follows more or less the same structure and can be framed within the multimedia options available in the

Multipurpose e-learning platforms might satisfy the management needs of architectural expert and non-expert courses (and activities) but when it comes to learning they need further extensions with special modules and functionalities to provide for suitable interactive and engaging environment. For expert learning, the multidimensional environments and integration of tools used in architectural practices are of the essence, with further extensions of scripting and parametric design highly recommended (i.e. 3D Lab in VIPA case, described later). For non-expert learning, the much needed user friendly upgrades are educational interfaces that can show complex spatial phenomena through different presentation means and engage the learner in constructivist learning activities. Much more about the functionalities, extensions and aims of e-learning platforms in architecture is highlighted

Not only can the distinction between expert and non-expert learners be drawn on the basis of different levels of 'reading-writing, visual-message' skills and on the expectations regarding the understanding of complex spatial phenomena, but also on the basis of formal knowledge expected from them. While future experts possess certain formal knowledge in the field and need to acquire and complement it through the learning process, non-experts can rely only on their informal and tacit knowledge when dealing with architectural and environmental tasks. While the future expert learner will, with the help of e-learning, cross the gulf of expertise (Quintana et al., 2002), gaining knowledge and skills to do his job successfully, the nonexpert will have to cross the gulf of knowledge in the field of architecture and gain insight into the field he is not familiar with and will not spent his life professionally practicing within its domain. However at the same time, his understanding of the field will play a crucial role in his decision making process and space interventions he will encounter during his lifespan of builder, active and passive actor in spatial environment and its 'inhabitant'. Given the sheer number of non-experts physically ('architecturally') intervening daily in their environments and deciding about it (through democratic processes), the non-experts are the major influencing factor in the environmental equation. This is where common aspects end and the e-learning prospects divide to two separate, equally important

through two different examples later in the chapter (see subchapters 3.1 and 4.8).

directions - for experts and non-experts - each with its own goals and agendas.

**3. E-learning in professional architectural training and education** 

Teaching architecture is not primarily an instructional process but rather a process of interaction and experience. An evaluation of the effectiveness of e-learning cannot only focus on the technology itself but should also examine the potential of technology as a tool for learning and design. Software for 3D modelling, rendering and animation and so on, should be combined with multi-user, interactive environments which support a social learning context. It is not that the 'virtual space' in which learning and teaching occurs

system but still adapt the pace of learning to an individual learner.

Learning *about* architecture (for non-experts) can follow the same blended and constructivist approaches although the levels need to be adapted in terms of existing non-expert knowledge pool, skills and their understanding of visual language.
