**4.8.2 Results**

Interactivity has a significant influence on the test results. The traditional f2f teaching with the computerized test solving part at the end still yields the best results. It has the smallest range between the lowest and highest grades. It is closely followed by the maximum interactive version of the interface, with middle and minimum versions trailing behind. In all these versions the range between the lowest and the highest scores extends. The results of

Fig. 2. Eco-spatial Education Interface (task#3 and the classroom setting).

contents, was applied and built into the educational interface.

awareness of their parents is still reflected in their way of thinking.

computers).

**4.8.2 Results** 

interactivity of tasks (visual feedback, reversibility of actions, experimenting). Conditions ranged from maximum to minimum interactivity, from traditional face to face (f2f) education method to the test group (which did not receive any information and educational contents, just the task and basic instructions). Several parameters were automatically recorded (i.e. time, user choices, etc) and results of each task graded. The technical requirements for running the application and its IT scope were intentionally scaled down to match the IT equipment in schools (no installation required, application runs even on slow

The educational contents and tasks dealt with eco-spatial topics and most urgent, common and annoying local problems the experts want to warn future generations of-, call to their attention- or change their attitudes toward- were building on sloped grounds, greenery around habitats, unfinished houses and their surroundings, building in the existing environment, adapting to scale, renovation of residential neighbourhoods, etc. The method of learning from (positive) examples, through the analysis of them, and learning by doing in a constructivist manner - simulating everyday considerations and decision making in task

The test group of 9th grade primary school pupils (age 13-15) had 218 units, which were evenly distributed among 5 test settings – 5 variations of interfaces. This population represents the last instant before the whole generation diversifies into different vocational and professional directions, it is mature enough as it has built relatively independent system of abstract, contextual thinking abilities and social responsibility awareness (Marjanovic Umek & Zupancic, 2004; Marjanovic Umek & Svetina, 2004) and not least - the architectural

Interactivity has a significant influence on the test results. The traditional f2f teaching with the computerized test solving part at the end still yields the best results. It has the smallest range between the lowest and highest grades. It is closely followed by the maximum interactive version of the interface, with middle and minimum versions trailing behind. In all these versions the range between the lowest and the highest scores extends. The results of the test group were unexpected - it has surprisingly good and focused scores. Nevertheless, the average scores are not as good as in traditional f2f approach, they are lower than the maximum interactivity group average, equalling middle and beating minimal interactive interfaces.

Results also show that (i) navigation has some effect on the results (moving freely among the tasks contributes to effectiveness), while (ii) narration/presentation of contents (or the lack of it) and (iii) interactivity of the task have considerable influence on the final score, but due to test design their individual effect contribution cannot be isolated. Considering (ii) narration: even though the pupils had an opportunity to look at the informative presentations as many times as they wished ('max' version), they mostly did not bother to do that; on the contrary, nobody even looked through the half of all presentations. On the other hand, in the 'mid' interface version all were able to interrupt the automatic presentation at the beginning of each task, but only two did so, with many replaying the presentations (despite this fact the average grade in this group is lower than that of the 'max' version). The visits to each task (where possible) show similar results – the highest average score is achieved in six visits (which means one visit more than there are tasks).

Considering (iii) interactivity of task: while the possibilities to reverse the actions ('undo') do not play a significant role, visual feedback, possibilities to test different elements or situations, visually evaluate and change selection if needed, and significantly contribute to higher score. Evaluating the amount of time spent compared with the grade, the best results were achieved by the users who spent approximately 20 minutes in the interface – the score up to this time gradually rises and then gradually falls. The majority of users spent between 5 and 20 minutes within the interface. The pupils considered task #3 the most interesting one. The same task was also the most complex of all five tasks and most game like, with different architectural elements, their 'value' and 'financial' balance required. The most difficult task was, according to the pupils, task #4, which was also the most abstract and the least liked.

#### **4.8.3 Reflections and lessons learned**

With each prototypical test run of software there are plenty of lessons learned and stories to tell but here we would like to focus on the pedagogical, technological and institutional aspects. From the perspective of the learners the interface and this kind of e-learning has been well accepted not least because it was a welcome distraction from the traditional teaching the learners are used to and freshness of topic as the primary education curricula in its span only briefly touches architecture.

While ignoring the provocative question "feedback, multiple-way communication, interaction: luxury or necessity in e-learning?" in the conclusions of that subchapter and dealing there more with the mechanics of the interfaces, we return to it at the conclusion of the subchapter: interactivity by all means is not a luxury any more. It has many aspects in elearning, beyond traditional interactionist theories (i.e. Haralambos, 1989), the major two: facilitation of interaction between dislocated participants of the learning process (which is of even greater importance in expert architectural e-learning) and in tune with interactionist theories that meaning is constructed in interactive situations through negotiations and discussion (Haralambos, 1989) and interactivity of learners and e-learning tools (contents included). The sustainable topics highlighted through the spatially related activities of groups and individual have been seen as a positive contribution to the curricula by the

E-Learning in Architecture: Professional and Lifelong Learning Prospects 179

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

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

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

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

4 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

persistent integration of e-learning in architecture.

informed decision making.

sustainability related topics in the learning programmes.

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 (Demsar Mitrovic et al., 2007).

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 programme scheme (Zupancic et al., 2009).

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