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

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 learners.

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).

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

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

E-Learning in Architecture: Professional and Lifelong Learning Prospects 175

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 &

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

The emerging field of architectural educational interfaces present**s** new opportunities to address younger generations and non-expert public as early as possible. Such systems are only part of a wider selection of means and tools for teaching and transmitting spatial topics to non-experts (other efforts that follow the more traditional path of learning include i.e.

The showcased prototypical Educational Eco-spatial Interface (Juvancic & Zupancic, 2008) represents architectural educational interfaces 1) for communicating professional values, issues, problematics, 2) for showing simplified cause-and-effect relationships and 3) for teaching responsible spatial acting through selected cases and learning-by-doing tasks. It acts as the helping hand for teachers who are already besieged with other equally important topics, overcoming the knowledge and time constriction barriers in formal education practices. Being part of the experiment, the elements of interfaces (the contents included) were tested through their use in educational settings in primary schools. Also tested were the independent variables of interface characteristics: ways of navigation, ways of narration and ways of interaction with elements. The system openness rate and rate of immersion were presumed constant (closed system and non-immersive interface) as was the

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

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)

3 adjective eco-spatial was coined from two adjectives: ecological and spatial to emphasize the

in and should act responsively and sustainably within its carrying capacities.

Arkki school of architecture for children and youth, Finland, Meskanen, 2007).

**4.8 Showcase example: Educational eco-spatial Interface3**

Juvancic, 2009)

contents (identical in all cases).

**4.8.1 Methods and materials** 

themselves.

interrelation between the two

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

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 also, but have yet to be seen in practice.
