Design, Media and Virtual Learning Environment

University of Westminster

MA Design for Interaction

Course Leader: Roman Buj

Design, Media and Virtual Learning Environment

Simone Alves Nogueira

September 2006

London

Supported by the Programme Alβan, the European Union

programme of High Level Scholarships for Latin America,

scholarship no. E05M060354BR.

2

Acknowledgments

We never accomplish anything alone. That’s why I would like to thank

Beatriz, Stela, Luiz and Silvia. Without their support I would not have

been able to complete this work. I would also like to thank the Pro-

gramme Alβan for funding my studies.

I’ll remember always the support and friendship of Rodrigo, Jack, Chris-

tina, Erica and Max. Thank you dear friends! Our good moments to-

gether will be unforgettable. My heartfelt thanks also to Karen and

Marcelo, who shared my UK adventure, and David, my best “world

friend”. To my family and Daigo’s family all my love and appreciation for

having them follow our steps far from home.

Special thanks to Roman, a special teacher.

This project is dedicated to Daigo, who always help me to make my

dreams come true.

3

Contents

Part I

Introduction........................................................................................... 5

People, activities, context and technologies (PACT)… and CONTENT ...... 7

Interaction........................................................................................ 7

The concept of PACT .......................................................................... 8

Content............................................................................................ 9

People are looking for the content .......................................................10

Virtual Learning Environment .............................................................11

System content and subject content....................................................14

People and content: the learning process ............................................. 20

Production system: the goals and sub-goals .........................................22

Parallel distributed process.................................................................22

Zone of Proximal Development ...........................................................23

Experiential learning .........................................................................24

Activities: the “what” and “how” of an interactive system.................... 26

Visibility ..........................................................................................27

Affordance.......................................................................................29

Conceptual model .............................................................................29

Mapping ..........................................................................................30

Feedback.........................................................................................31

Context: inside and outside .................................................................. 32

Technologies: interaction with the system and subject content ............ 33

Part II

Design, Media and Virtual Learning Environment: a practical proposal . 36

Tabletop..........................................................................................37

Metaphor.........................................................................................38

Perspective and movement ................................................................39

Eye tracking.....................................................................................40

Interactive Medias in an interactive environment...................................41

Conclusion ........................................................................................... 42

References........................................................................................... 43

4

Some of the most crucial steps in mental growth are

based not simply on acquiring new skills, but on acquiring

new administrative ways to use what one already knows.

Seymour Papert’s principle

Part I

Introduction

The development of the new technologies has improved the interaction

between people and machines, and between people. For education, these

new technologies motivated universities, companies and other institutions

to approach the teaching-learning process in a more effective way for

those who would like (or need) to study in distance learning courses. This

project is a reflection and evaluation of how a well designed interactive

virtual learning environment - focused on a learner-centred context and

which takes into consideration user perception, participation and learning

activities – can help students attain their personal and educational poten-

tial and improve constructively the teaching-learning process. A virtual

learning environment (VLE) – an on-line system developed to support

education via computational devices – is a designed information space1

which demands a better understanding from designers of the functional

1 Pierre, Dillenbourg. Virtual Learning Environment. 2000. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.5.18.pdf

5

relationship between how information is structured and represented and

how it can be interacted with learning activities.

Divided into theoretical and practical approaches, this text has two parts:

Part I is composed of premises about design for interaction concerning

their significance for the development of systems that are focused in on-

line courses. This part presents reflections about the concept of PACT -

published by Benyon, Turner and Turner in the book Designing Interactive

Systems: people, activities, contexts and technologies - and the additional

concept of CONTENT in the interaction process. Those concepts have an

important role in the assumptions presented in each topic, as they are the

guidelines for the arguments and descriptions about a better interaction

with the VLE.

To reflect about the design of a VLE that is deeply relevant to a high level

education, it is necessary first to examine how people learn, remember

and create new ideas, as all interactive projects should meet the student’s

demands. Second, it is important to understand how activities can help

students interact with content in a more engaged way. The reflection on,

practise and evaluation of information by the user is essential in educa-

tional system and activities help the user pass by each of these steps in

her/his studies. Third, it is necessary to explore the context of the student

in an e-learning situation, which involves inner and outer environments.

Finally, it is significant to know the role of new technologies for distance

learning and how those technologies can be helpful to the students in the

development of VLEs. But all these concepts are not strong enough if it is

not considerate by the designer the main goal of the student: the content.

Although the idea of PACT presented by the authors cited was conceptual-

ized to teach how to design an interactive system, the project takes this

theory to analyse the aspects that involves specifically the design of VLEs.

Others authors such as Johnson-Laird (1998) and Norman (1999) were

important reference to develop a deeper reflection about this concept and

Bush (1945), Paper (1980) and Alan Kay (1995) were an inspiration to the

realization of the practical project proposed in Part II: a virtual environ-

6

ment conceptualized for education. This part explores a new way of de-

signing an educational system with the needs of students, particularly

those learning from a distance, in mind. Parts I and II include principles

for better interaction between student and system in a distance learning

context.

The project does not claim to solve all the challenges implicated in the de-

velopment of VLEs but, rather, suggests some practical applications of the

design of a more effective and engaging interactive environment. It is im-

portant to stress that the research is in the field of environmental interac-

tion (inner + outer) and not directly in the field of social interaction.

People, activities, content and technologies (PACT) …

and CONTENT

Interaction

The concept of interaction is broadly applied and studied: social interac-

tion, system interaction, environmental interaction – interaction within

environments, interaction with physical objects/devices. Social interaction

is not only the communication between people but can also be the com-

munication between people supported by a device. The presence of the

device implies interaction with a physical object/product/tool. Surrounded

by a range of different devices, the user (student) is in a concrete interac-

tive environment. An interactive environment can be a virtual system, as

presented in this text, or can be a workplace.

Interaction is characterised and determined by action and reaction - input

and output - between the user and the environment. All interaction will

have a response, even though this reaction is movement or sound. Some

interactive devices are related to the interaction process of itself, others

are related to interaction with the content. For example: when one

squeezes a rubber ball there is a kinaesthetic interaction with the object.

When one presses a rubber ball and knows that when s/he does so the

7

ball emits sound the interaction is to access the sound (content) rather

than the object. This is a simple example but shows a very important dif-

ference between the interaction with the device and with the content. This

distinction is better explained in addition to the concept of PACT.

Norman (1999) argues interaction is ruled by goals, the motivation to

achieve something. The figure below represents Norman’s concept of

“Seven Stages of Action” (figure 1), showing how the user’s goals are

transformed in intentions that are transformed in actions in order to get

the goal. As soon as the world responds to the user’s action; the user per-

ceives the result of her/his action in the world; interprets what was per-

ceived and evaluates the interpretations, checking if the goal was

achieved. This is a basic concept that is definitive to understand how peo-

ple interact with their environment and how goals and intentions make

important part in this process.

Figure 1. Seven Stages of Action. Source: Norman (1999)

8

The concept of PACT

According to Benyon, Turner & Turner People, Activities, Contexts and

Technologies (PACT) is an acronym which attempts to cover all the con-

cepts associated with interaction. People are an integral part of the design

outcome and the process of interaction. Activities are the tasks the user

has to carry out in order to achieve her/his intentions and goals. The con-

text is related to the environment where the activities take place and how

the physical, organizational and social relations between people and this

environment are connected. Since the last century technologies have

taken a major role in people’s lives as they have become important to

most activities. People, activities, contexts and technologies are interde-

pendent in an interactive system. There is no way of considering one

without considering the others, as they are naturally linked. This taxon-

omy can be expressed as: people undertake activities in contexts using

technologies.2

Although the PACT concept covers most matters concerning interaction

with systems within a unified idea, there is an important concept missing

in Benyon, Turner & Turner argument: the content. The assumption here

is that the content is people’s main goals when interacting with a system.

This concept is better explained in the next two topics below.

Content

According to McClintic (1985), content has taken over form as an impor-

tant element in the Arts. Although form and content are interdependent in

Arts, since the last century the artist has had a deeper concern for con-

tent3. McClintic argues “questions of meaning, referentiality, signification,

and intention have become crucial considerations for artist, critic, and

viewer.” Historically art has always been at the vanguard of the times,

and it brings new concepts in its form, techniques and technologies. It has

been a reference point and has helped many people come to new points of

2 Benyon, David & Turner, Phil & Turner, Susan. Designing interactive systems: people, activities, con-texts, technologies. Pearson Education: England, 2005. 3 McClintic, Miranda. Content: a contemporary focus 1974-1984. In Content: making meaning and referentiality. Smithsonian: USA, 1985.

9

view. The movement towards content is already a reality in the arts and

now it needs to become a concern for the design of VLEs.

In Distance Learning, content can be a range of subjects and is profoundly

important to how people perceive, interpret and construct their own

meaning from what they experience. Content can be presented in different

forms: oral language, written language and graphical language. Text,

signs, symbols, diagrams, photos, illustrations, music, narratives and so

forth are representations and transmit the subject to people, who can

then interact with the subject and learn from it

The advancing technologies have developed in most of designer a deeper

concern with tools and systems rather than content. The gap between

people who know the course information and people who understand the

knowledge in technology has increased the separation between content

and system, resulting in VLEs that lack a holistic experienced learning.

The construction of the knowledge through the interaction with the VLE

such that the student not only reaches the content but can infer from it

was treated as secondary in importance and was sometimes completely

forgotten. Certainty one has to interact with the system to interact with

the content but the main user focus is always the content not the system.

Content is what people are looking for when interacting with a VLE.

People are looking for the content

Doubtless people’s main goal when interacting with an electronic environ-

ment is to access the content. The system can be a game, a calculator, an

electronic schedule, a remote control or a music player. All are systems

which help people to reach their goal: the narrative of the game, the

amount of multiple sums, the tomorrow’s appointments, the TV program

and the recorded music. The point is not the device but what people want

from it: the content.

In order to reach the content the user has to pass through an experience

to accomplish his/her goal. When one interacts with an environment the

10

action is always involved unconsciously (or consciously) with the questions

What am I looking for?, Where is it?, When does it happen?, How long?,

What can happen?, What can I do?, What do I want? Those questions call

for actions, those actions call for interaction, interactions call for content,

content calls for meaning, meaning calls for learning and learning calls for

memory. A good learning environment should invite the student to answer

those questions, increase knowledge of the subject and help the student

to develop new assumptions.

In addiction, the system should provide different approaches to the con-

tent as students have different ways of learning, different media to pre-

sent the same content (redundancy) as people use different senses to

learn, and mobility as people may wish to access the content in different

contexts. Hence, the student has the intention and the desire of learning;

the system has a structure that allows the students to immerse in the VLE

and engage with content.

Virtual Learning Environment

According to Talbot (2005) VLEs are “electronic equivalents of the re-

sources available in real university or college buildings. [A space] to ac-

cess information and/or study materials and to contribute to discussions

within one”4. This is the vision of many teachers and system developers: a

place to deliver information and to communicate with the others. Wikipe-

dia – one of the most accessed on-line encyclopedias5 - presents another

definition but with the same idea of a system as an administration space:

“a software system designed to facilitate teachers in the management of

educational courses for their students, especially by helping teachers and

learners with course administration.”6 According to these definitions a VLE

is seen as a teacher-centered place as the focus is what the teachers want

to deliver to the students and how they want to manage the course. The

VLE is not seen as a place to study and learn - learner-centered - which it

4 Talbot, Christine. Studying at a Distance: a guide for students. UK: Open University Press, 2005. 5 According to Alexa Internet, that provides information on the web traffic to other websites, Wikipedia ranks among the top 20 most visited sites. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia 6 Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_learning_environment

11

would be more appropriate with the meaning of its term. Maybe this point

of view comes from the history of Virtual Learning Environments and its

relation with the development of technologies. Distance learning arose

from the necessity of deliver information for people who were distant from

the university or college and who wished to conclude a specialized course

but didn’t want to return to school. The lack of technologies restricted the

courses to printed materials and the communication between teachers and

students were mainly by mail and by phone. The process of learning was

probably slower and lonely with few social interactions. It seems that this

concept of deliver information remained for most of the teachers and insti-

tutions that develop courses for distance learning. Questions as how the

media can be associated increasing the learning process and how the stu-

dent can develop their knowledge in the system have been forgotten.

On this model the student has another place to study rather than the VLE.

It is supposed that students have their own learning space and the on-line

system is the place for accessing information, to communicate and send

activities. There is no interaction with the content in the virtual environ-

ment, so it is imposed on students that the learning process happens out-

side the system. It is known that learning can happen anywhere and any-

time and in different situations but in distant learning a VLE should be the

most important space for the student to reflect, compare and construct

her/his knowledge. The technologies available today can provide a much

more interactive system and, integrating it to the concepts of learning

process, this system can be much more effective. The design of a VLE

should provide an interactive space where the student can feel comfort-

able, more confident, more engaged and with her/his senses more stimu-

lated.

Although there are many interactive technologies already developed most

of the systems researched which involves virtual interactive learning are

not attractive; not easy understandable; with low interaction as they have

only “clicking” as the main access to the information, not engaging and

very similar to the Microsoft Windows design – menu bar, title bar, control

menu, maximizing and minimizing buttons on the top and links to the con-

12

tent on the left (figures 2 and 3). What the system offers normally is not

explicit and people can get lost in the middle of a poor interaction, without

knowing where they are in the content.

Figure 2. The PUC Minas Virtual’s VLE. Based in Domino. Source: PUC Minas Virtual.

Figure 3. The Blackboard VLE. Source: University of Westminster.

13

The VLEs are conceptualized to deliver information and not to allow the

student to manipulate them in a converged space (learning environment).

The student does each activity (essay, conference, chat, reading, and so

forth) in different places which are disconnected from each other and not

easily visible. The task for the student to make connections between the

activities and information in the VLE does not seem to be natural or in-

stinctive.

On the other hand a well designed system that allows the student to in-

teract with the content - and, consequently, with its meanings - in an en-

gaging process can motivate students to improve their studies. According

to Foley et al. “the quality of the user interface often determines whether

users enjoy or despise a system.” They argues that “the keys goals in

user interface design are increase in speed of learning, in speed of use,

reduction of error rate, encouragement of rapid recall of how to use the

interface, and increase in attractiveness to potential users and buyers.”

How can interactive VLE be designed to achieve those keys goals? First, it

is important to understand how people learn and how people memorize

facts, a topic which is presented in the “People and content” section of this

text. The speed of use, according to Johnson-Laird (1998), is directly re-

lated to the number of times one performed the system as the rate of

learning slows down. As much as one practice s/he saves time to perform

the task7. But to learn a complex task can take a long time, so it is neces-

sary to considerate the previous knowledge of the user to make faster in-

teraction possible. The reduction of error rate can be solved by the feed-

backs provided by the system and the possibilities that the system gives

to the user to redo her/his actions. In order to encourage a rapid recall of

how to use the interface the system should be designed in a way that pro-

vides an intuitive interaction. The attractiveness is resolved not only by

the aesthetics of the system but how much engagement it provides which

means, how it involves all the user’s senses.

7 Johnson-Laird, P. N. The computer and the mind: an introduction to cognitive science. Fontana Pa-perbacks: London, 1998.

14

There is no system which alone can teach the student as the studying

process depends mainly on the student’s desire, intentions, motivations

and interaction with teachers and classmates. A well designed interactive

system should provide an adequate environment for studying, reading,

associating, thinking, reasoning, experimenting and recalling the content.

Instead of teach – teacher-centred - the system should assist the student

to improve her/his knowledge – learner-centred - in a two-way teaching-

learning process8.

System content and subject content

A VLE is composed by two different contents: system content and subject

content. Most authors present the visual configuration of a virtual envi-

ronment as Interface – the parts where users contact physically, percep-

tually and conceptually in the system9. This project defines the interface

as system content and subject content in order to delimitate the different

approaches between those two contents. In education this differentiation

is very important as it is necessary to understand how those two contents

can interact with each other in order to provide a better learning space.

System content consists of all the information related to the manipulation

of the system (images, words, symbols, instructions and so forth). It al-

lows the user to understand how the system works; what the user

can/can’t do and where the subject content is located. Subject content

consists of all information related to the content of a specific course

(texts, pictures, diagrams, sounds, movies, etc.). In a virtual environment

the system content can be separated from the subject content; or can be

mixed with it; or do not exist.

8 Talbot, Christine. Studying at a Distance: a guide for students. UK: Open University Press, 2005 9 Benyon, David & Turner, Phil & Turner, Susan. Designing interactive systems: people, activities, con-texts, technologies. Pearson Education: England, 2005.

15

Figure 4. The access to the system content and subject content.

The system content can be separated from the subject content when they

are independent and are not presented at the same time. For example, a

home page where the system content is available but the user cannot see

the subject content. The user has to interact with the information avail-

able that indicates the access to the subject content (figure 5). The two

contents are mixed when both are presented at the same time. For exam-

ple, the BBC site has a system content (links, tabs and icons) in its top

and left structure and subject content in the right of the screen (figure 6).

System content cannot exist when the user interaction is directly with the

subject content, in other words without the intermediation of the system

content (figure 7).

16

Figure 5. System content separated from the subject content. Source:

http://www.300k.com/www/welcome.html?

Figure 6. System content mixed with the subject content. Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk

17

Figure 7. System content do not exist (only the subject content). Multi touch interaction research.

Source: http://mrl.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/

Most VLEs present both contents as it is necessary a structure that shows

the student how the subject content is organized and what media are

available. If students understand the system content easily they can

memorise how to interact with it in a confident way; reach the subject

content faster and with less obstacles. The system content is not what the

student is looking for but it is what will help her/him to attain their inten-

tions and goals: the subject content. The interpretation of the system con-

tent is definitive for the learning process.

But not all the structure which involves system content and subject con-

tent is easily understandable, efficient and engaging. What does make an

interactive VLE efficient and engaging?

There are two problems here: first is to design an interactive system con-

tent in a way that it becomes “transparent” - helping the user to access

the subject content without concern about the system content -; second is

to design an interactive subject content according to a good teaching-

learning process.

18

The system content should be transparent in order not to be a concern for

the user but, instead, it should be a bridge to reach the subject content

easily. Taking the visual system as a metaphor, people do not stop to

think how they see, they just see. The goal when one is looking at some-

thing is to see and not how to see. The ‘system’ process is transparent.

People do “not stop to inspect the process of vision to check whether it is

working properly” (Laird, 1988). One only pays attention to the process of

seeing when one has a problem such as seeing blurred images/scenes or

having something in the eyes that interrupts vision. One is aware of the

system but does not directly experience its functioning. In a similar way, if

there is a problem or obstacles in the VLE the user starts to pay more at-

tention and spend more time on the system content than on the subject

content. The process of interaction with the system content should be

natural, intuitive and … transparent.

Observing some people playing with electronic games is something that

can be intriguing. Why are they so involved with the game and sometimes

don’t even pay attention to what is happing around them? Some electronic

games are very interesting example of interactivity between the user, the

system content and the subject content. The user takes some time to un-

derstand, learn and memorize how the game works but as soon as s/he

learns it becomes what psychologists term psychomotor learning10 (Pont,

2003) - the access to the subject content of the game become automatic.

The user doesn’t have to think too much about the system content, as in

driving a car or keying in text.

Some electronic games are engaging as they give the feeling of achieve-

ment and have creative environments (sometimes simple and sometimes

complex). The user learns how to pass from one level to another, be-

comes engaged with the system content and is motivated to discover the

subject content in the different representational environments and levels.

But it is important to stress that if the game is too difficult the user can

feel not motivated and give it up. If it is too easy the user can get bored

10 Psychomotor learning is the psychological skills that are required to execute an action. Those skills are learned by practice. (Pont, 2003)

19

quickly. The most engaging games are balanced between ‘easy and diffi-

cult’11.

An example of a graphical interactive game is “Day of the Tentacle”

(1993) – published by LucasArts and designed by Dave Grossman and Tim

Schafer (figure 8). The system engages the user by presenting a narrative

in different environments, several characters, a very interesting naviga-

tion in space and time, and the possibility of collecting some objects that

can be used later in other situations to help to solve the challenge pro-

posed by the game. But most important: LucasArts introduced a philoso-

phy that the game should not punish the player, in other words the player

character cannot die12.

Figure 8. The game “Maniac Mansion: Day of the Tentacle”. Source: http://mojoart.mixnmojo.com

An educational system doesn’t necessarily need to be a game but can use

the concepts of this virtual environment - levels, creativity, feedback, im-

mersion, clues, and so forth - in order to improve the learning process.

11 Concept presented by Gary Pope in the event “Kids: the converged consumers?” – 01-zero-one, London, 28/02/06. 12 Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_of_the_Tentacle

20

The feeling of achievement in the subject content is important to keep the

student motivated. The feedback from the system content is a significant

resource as it makes the student feel that they are not alone and can

evaluate their own study progress. Clues are helpful for the recall from in-

formation. It is important to stress that the designers should avoid devel-

oping a system which presents an interesting interaction with the system

content but that it is not well developed to help users to reach the subject

content.

In order to design interactive subject contents, the learning process has to

be taken into consideration. The next topic discusses this further.

People and content: the learning process

In everyday situations, behaviour is determined by the combination

of internal knowledge and external information and constraints.

Donald A. Norman

There is no construction of knowledge if people are not interacting within

the world so learning is not only in the student’s mind but in their rela-

tionship with the environment. The process happens in the mind but the

information comes from the educational realm in a mutually dependent

relation. The information activates the mental processes for perception-

action-cognition (interpreting, evaluating, creating, memorising) and, con-

sequently, learning.

Norman (1999) argues that “much of our everyday knowledge resides in

the world, not in the head … there certainly is a lot of information out

there in the world, not in the head.” According to Johnson-Laird (1998)

there are two ways of creating assumptions about the world: “they can be

built into the nervous system as a result of millions of years of evolution,

or they can be learned during a person’s lifetime.” Understanding how the

mind works and how people perceive the world is an important back-

ground for those who develop VLEs. Mainly because this knowledge can

21

help professionals to understand how people interpret the world, repre-

sent it in their minds and use this to act in the environment. A transfor-

mation in one’s interpretation of the environment can correspond to a

transformation in his/her acts.

“There is a close relationship between creating and learning (…). The dif-

ference between the two is that when you learn, you acquire information

from a teacher or the environment, but when you create, the essential

constraints are those that you provide yourself.” (Johnson-Laird, 1998) So

the interaction with the system content and the subject content has to

provide not only information but also it has to offer a space to learn and

create as well. This is viable design for a system where there are tools

that allow user to transform and add information resulting in a different

and personal result, maybe a creative one. It is possible to illustrate this

by an example presented by Johnson-Laird: “if you multiply two numbers

together, their product may be a number that you have never thought of

before.” The user chooses the numbers, the system allows the user many

possibilities to interact with the numbers and figure out different results.

The result can be novel for the student.

Many researchers have established theoretical principles for the retrieval

of info in memory and for learning. These theories are important related

to the design of VLEs although to choose one or other to be the basis for a

system will depend on the institution’s and teacher’s proposals. Newell

and Simon (1972) discussed two concepts of learning called production

system and parallel distributed processing; Vygotsky (1978) defined the

Zone Proximal of Development (ZPD); and David Kolb (1984) developed

the Experiential Learning Cycle. Presented below is a short outline of

those theories. They are related to the proposal of the practical project

presented in the second part of this text. The theories are followed by

some practical examples contextualized in design for VLEs.

22

Production system: the goals and sub-goals

According to Newell and Simon all actions are ruled by an intention and a

goal. However they went further and introduced to the idea of sub-goals,

and a program known as general problem solver (GPS). This theory is re-

lated to the search for a solution during the process of trying to reach a

goal and the necessity to create one or more sub-goals to solve the sub-

parts of the problem. Newell and Simon looked for a mental/software op-

eration that reduces the distance between goal and intention13. The game

cited earlier in this text “Day of the Tentacle” is a good example of goal

and sub-goals. The user has a main goal to be accomplished but to reach

it s/he has to pass trough sub-goals such as collect some tools, decipher

some riddles and discover some places where the information is available.

The idea of sub-goals can be helpful for the students in a VLE as the sub-

ject content can be proposed in subparts with smaller challenges, units or

chunks such as learning objects14.

Parallel distributed process

Johnson-Laird (1998) argues that “one thing reminds us of another” - the

ability that all people have but hardly notice it. In other words, access to a

fragment of the information can lead to completion of the information or

association with other information. Johnson-Laird explains that small units

of information are connected to each other and compute in parallel. Some

pairs of units “are wired up so as to excite each other: when one is acti-

vated then it increases the level of activation of the other” but at the

same time other pairs of units “are wired up so as to inhibit each other:

when one is activated then it reduces the level of activation of the other”.

It means that one unit of information matches the best possibility of con-

nection to other unit discarding the non-compatible possibility. Understand

the parallel-distributed process can be positive in the development of VLE

as the use of this concept can motivate and engage the students to par-

13 Johnson-Laird, P. N. The computer and the mind: an introduction to cognitive science. Fontana Pa-perbacks: London, 1998. 14 Learning objects - digital or non-digital resource that can be used to support learning – are an ex-ample of content in subparts. www.reusability.org.

23

ticipate in the construction of their knowledge. In other words, part of the

information can be given in the environment but the student should make

assumptions about the continuity of this information in a cognitive mental

process.

Zone of Proximal Development

“The distance between the actual development level as determined by in-

dependent problem solving and the level of potential development as de-

termined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration

with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978) According to Vygotsky the

space between what is known and what can be known by a student is

where learning process occurs and a cognitive development can take

place. For the design of VLEs it means what has been mentioned before: a

system can be interactively easy and the individual does not take interest

on it or can be interactively difficult and the individual starts to feel unable

to accomplish her/his tasks. The concept of Zone of Proximal Development

proposed by Vygotsky can be a guide to how a system can be engaging:

the space between what is easy and what is difficult for the individual can

be a clue for the design of engaging VLEs (figure 9).

Figure 9. A representation of the Zone of Proximal Development.

24

Experiential learning

According to Kolb (1984) there are four stages in the learning process:

concrete experience; observations and reflections; formation of abstract

concepts; and generalisations and testing implications of concepts in new

situations. The process is called the Experiential Learning Cycle15. This

theory explains as well the difference in styles of learning. Peter Honey

and Alan Mumford16 associated Kolb’s four learning stages as activist,

theorist, reflector and pragmatist. The schema below shows both Kolb’s

stage and Peter Honey and Alan Mumford’s styles of learning.

Figure 10. Experiential Learning Cycle. Redesigned with the addition of

Peter Honey and Alan Mumford’s styles of learning.

Experiential learning is a concept used by many teachers and it is pre-

sented in many learning practice structures. Focused in design of VLEs,

this theory can be a reminder for teachers and designers that there are

different learning styles and that a system should provide as many differ-

ent approaches as possible to the subject content. An interactive VLE

should present variety in the use of tools and technologies; media like au-

dio, video and printed material; and input devices such as webcam, light

15 Pont, Tony. Developing effective training skills: from personal insight to organisational performance. CIPD: London, 2003. 16 Cited in Pont, Tony. Developing effective training skills: from personal insight to organisational per-formance. CIPD: London, 2003.

25

pen and new format screens. The use of those media and new technolo-

gies should not be an increase of meaningless resources and devices but

tools to engage strategically the student in the subject content.

Given these models for learning described above, it is important to stress

that learning also involves emotion, as one can’t separate mental process

from feelings and sensations. Johnson-Laird (1998) explains that mental

representations can be conscious or unconscious processes and the con-

tents of consciousness are divided in two categories: symbolic and non-

symbolic. Symbolic contents are perception, ideas, beliefs, hypothesis,

and so forth and non-symbolic contents are feelings and sensations17. He

argues that “if emotions are a non-symbolic way of guiding behaviour, it

follows that they have a causal effect on behaviour (…). Emotions can in-

deed affect perception”. According to him emotions can affect memory, as

people “recall events that happened to them in an emotional state more

readily if they are currently experiencing the same feeling.” Cognition and

emotions are interlinked and feelings affect actions. It is important to de-

velop a system that is, besides aesthetically beautiful, more engaging

through the use of the different senses – vision, audition, haptic and kin-

esthetic. Using all these senses within a potentially creative system the

user may experience feelings of pleasure, improvement, curiosity, concen-

tration, realization, confidence, involvement, surprise, happiness and so

forth. Feelings that are supportive for learning.

An additional point to emphasize for the learning process to be effective is

that the system should make sense to the student. Norman argues that a

“well-designed object are easy to interpret and understand. They contain

visible clues to their operation. Poorly designed objects can be difficult and

frustrating to use.”18 To design a system that is ‘meaningful’ is essential to

support student learning.

17 Johnson-Laird, P. N. The computer and the mind: an introduction to cognitive science. Fontana Pa-perbacks: London, 1998. 18 Norman, Donald A. The Design of everyday things. MIT Press: USA, 1999

26

Activities: the “what” and “how” of an interactive system

An event in the world may trigger

an interpretation and a resulting response.

Donald A. Norman

Activities are the user tasks when interacting with a system. As shown in

the figure 1 (Seven Stages of Action) actions are ruled by goals and inten-

tions. Intentions are a sequence of actions towards the world in order to

achieve the goals. When one acts on an environment there is a change of

state of that environment and a feedback occurs. One perceives the feed-

back and retrieves it as a short or long term memory using this to act to-

wards the environment to achieve the next intention. Norman explains

that “there is a continuing feedback loop, in which the results of one activ-

ity are used to direct further ones, in which goals lead to subgoals, inten-

tions lead to subintentions”. One understands that, to reach a final goal,

s/he can divide her/his activities into sequential chunks.

Norman presents two important concepts that should be taken into con-

sideration in the design of interactive activities in the VLE: the gulf of exe-

cution and the gulf of evaluation. The gulf of execution is the gap between

the user’s intentions and her/his corporal actions and states. Norman

asks: “Do the actions provided by the system match those intended by

the person?”

The gulf of evaluation is the user’s effort to understand the system and

establish the effectiveness of the system to respond to user expectations

and intentions. Norman asks: “Does the system provide a physical repre-

sentation that can be directly perceived and that is directly interpretable

in terms of the intentions and expectations of the person?” He answers:

“The relationships between the user’s intentions, the required actions, and

the results should be sensible, non-arbitrary and meaningful” (Norman

1999). One of the most important considerations in the design of a system

is how the system maps the intentions of the user to their actions and vice

versa.

27

Conceptual scenarios – narratives describing possible people interactions

with the system undertaking different activities in a specific context19 -

can be a useful method to understand how people carry out activities.

Vannevar Bush, in 1945, imagined the activities that users could accom-

plish with his Memex system - "a device in which an individual stores all

his books, records, and communications, and which is mechanized so that

it may be consulted with exceeding speed and flexibility."20 - thought the

construction of a conceptual scenario. His narrative describes the actions

that would be taken in the system:

It consists of a desk … He runs through the book before him, each page in

turn being projected at a speed which just allows a recognizing glance at each.

If he deflects it further to the right, he steps through the book 10 pages at a

time; still further at 100 pages at a time. Deflection to the left gives him the

same control backwards. A special button transfers him immediately to the

first page of the index. Any given book of his library can thus be called up and

consulted with far greater facility than if it were taken from a shelf. As he has

several projection positions, he can leave one item in position while he calls up

another. He can add marginal notes and comments, taking advantage of one

possible type of dry photography, and it could even be arranged so that he

can do this by a stylus scheme...21

Bush’s description of the conceptual scenario of the Memex was useful to

those who were inspired by him. A creation of a scenario can be a helpful

instrument for the conceptualization of a system and a way to help the

designer and the stakeholders visualize the designer ideas.

Besides the creation of a conceptual scenario, there are other important

theories that are concerned with the process of people activities in the en-

vironment. Visibility, affordance, conceptual model, mappings and feed-

back are some of them. These concepts are presented shortly below.

19 Benyon, David & Turner, Phil & Turner, Susan. Designing interactive systems: people, activities, contexts, technologies. Pearson Education: England, 2005. 20 Bush, Vannevar. As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945. 21 Bush, Vannevar. As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945

28

Visibility

Visibility indicates the mapping between intended actions

and actual operations. Visibility indicates crucial distinctions.

Donald A. Norman

Norman defines visibility as the presence of natural signals in the envi-

ronment, “naturally interpreted, without any need to be conscious of

them”. In a VLE it means that student should understand the system con-

tent easily, without to being concerned about it and reach the subject con-

tent “naturally”22. Visibility can be associated to feedback as the system

can give to the user visual information about what is happening. In this

way the user can visualise the answers on her/his actions and feel confi-

dent about her/his options. There will be no surprises where it is not nec-

essary to have them.

Affordance

Affordances provide strong clues to the operations of things.

Donald A. Norman

The affordance – the perceiving of object properties that allow the as-

sumption of how the object works and can be used – is unquestionably a

significant theory to understand how people interact with systems and

how the system should be accessible in a mode that the user easily inter-

acts with it. Afforded environments probably do not need to present ex-

planations of how it works but is designed in such structure that the user

identifies its process of interaction intuitively. Although some complex sys-

tem should provide explanations about its functioning, systems designed

for education should be more self explicative.

22 Norman, Donald A. The Design of everyday things. MIT Press: USA, 1999.

29

Conceptual model

A good conceptual model allows us to predict the effects of our actions.

Donald A. Norman

Norman argues that “people form mental models through experience,

training, and instruction” and this help them to anticipate an event and

understand how things work A conceptual model - mental representations

of real world23 - can be developed through the interaction with the sys-

tem. The user learns how to use a system developing her/his intern refer-

ence of the extern world – the environment. To develop a VLE that counts

on people mental models can be an answer for those who wish a system

that provides a fast interaction. People won’t take too much time to inter-

act with the system if they already have an intern reference of how the

system works.

Mapping

A device is easy to use when there is visibility to the set of possible actions,

where the controls and displays exploit natural mappings.

Donald A. Norman

Mapping is the sequence of actions that the user record in her/his mind

when interacting with the environment: the user movements towards the

world and the results of the user actions from the world. A well con-

structed mapping can help the user interact with the system easily as s/he

understands the sequence of actions that have to be undertaken. Accord-

ing to Norman, other quality of good mappings is that they are easy re-

membered, what assist the user to access the system in a more natural

performance and expend more time with what is more significant to

her/him: the subject content.

23 The main concern of cognitive science is to explain how the mind works treating it in a computa-tional point of view. This concept is called theory of computability (Johnson-Laird, 1998).

30

Feedback

[Imagine] trying to draw a picture with

a pencil that leaves no mark: there would be no feedback.

Donald A. Norman

Norman asks: “Why are the modern systems so difficult to learn and to

use?” His answer is: “The problem is that the systems have more features

and less feedback.” After starting pay attention to systems answers peo-

ple can understand why their mouse make a noise when it is clicked or the

microwaves does a loud sound when it accomplished the time set for

warming some food. They are giving feedback for the user that they are

working, or have finished or there is something wrong. Most of people’s

actions have feedbacks from the environment but most of the time people

don’t pay attention to the fact that they are being conducted by them.

People start to pay attention when the feedback is missing and they loose

the reference of what is happening. In a VLE the all sort of feedbacks,

such as the system is processing information, alert of possible user’s mis-

takes, changing of colour indicating that something is altering, and so

forth – are essential to the student realise how the system is responding

her/his interaction. Feedback is intrinsic connected to the senses as the

system’s answer can be presented through visual information, sound,

movement and so forth.

Concluding, a system that provides to the user visual clues, that is easier

to understand, familiar to the user and considering her/his experiences

and with instructive feedback can be more effective, interactive and hu-

man-centred.

31

Context: inside and outside

Many people organize their lives in the world, creating a pile here, a pile there,

each indicating some activity to be done, some event in progress.

Thomas Malone

Malone (1983) interviewed professionals and clerical office workers about

the way they organize their desks in order to understand how people deal

with information and how this could be helpful in the development of

computer-based systems. There are two main claims in his research: the

first one is that people organize their desks in a way that the information

is available to remind them things to be accomplished, and equally to help

them to find the information24.

He explains that people separate the information in files – papers and

folders are titled and arranged in systematic order - and piles – papers

and folders are not titled and not necessary organized. In the later the

spatial location is important to help the user to find the information. Peo-

ple spread the papers around them, sometimes in an organized way and

sometimes not, and is oriented by categorization and/or location. The im-

portant is to make visible the information in order to remind the user that

s/he has something to do, not only to be available when s/he is looking

for it. Things that are in drawers are more difficult to remind then those

that are visible. Malone’s research and discussion is an inspiration for

those who want to design systems for virtual learning. His assumptions

are user-centred and provide insights for how systems can help people to

organize their information using new technologies.

People are narrowed connected to the context they are inserted and the

way they organize their environment. Malone explains that people create

in their mind a map of where some information is available, developing a

mental environment with the position of the things placed in her/his real

24 Malone, Thomas W. How do people organize their desks? Implications for the design of office infor-mation systems. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 1983. http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/360000/357430/p99-malone.pdf?key1=357430&key2=3285155511&coll=GUIDE&dl=GUIDE&CFID=3441998&CFTOKEN=12776240

32

environment. If one wants to find something s/he accesses the mental

environment imagining where it was placed in her/his surroundings. It

isn’t necessary to memorize everything, only to know where the informa-

tion is available and, whenever people need, to access it. Some examples

of this statement are phonebooks, schedules, book guides, and so forth.

Norman affirms that “it is a general property of memory that we story

only partial descriptions of the things to be remembered”, as a conse-

quence people just need to see a part of the content to understand, re-

member or recognize all the information.

Location is a strategy to help the user to remember some contents that

has to be accessed. This demonstrates how the external world (context) is

connected to the people interior world (mental environment). The external

world and the user mental environment are connected to the virtual envi-

ronment in an interconnection of worlds. The relation between the student

context (mental and physical) and the virtual environment cannot be put

aside without considering their intricate relation. It is important to visual-

ise where the interaction takes place and how it interferes in the user in-

teraction with the system. The connection between the outside and inside

of the user’s world and the outside and inside of the virtual system takes

an special role in the development of a VLE as, together, the student con-

text and the system make part of the learning process. It is like two envi-

ronments that communicate with each other providing an engaging rela-

tionship to the learner. In a learning environment, context is more than

the place where the student learn; it is the whole relation between the in-

terior student world, the student external world and the world inside the

VLE.

33

Technologies: interaction with the system and subject content

The emphasis until the early 1980s was on optimizing two scarce hardware resources,

computer time and memory. (…) with today’s plummeting hardware costs and increasingly

powerful graphics-oriented personal computing environments, however, we can afford to

optimize user efficiency rather than computer efficiency

Foley et. al

There are many researches about learning and computers and most of

them were inspired by Vannevar Bush with his revolutionary “memory ex-

tender” - Memex - cited before. Bush had a visionary view of the

technological future and his concepts are still an important reference for

several computers system developers. In Bush famous article As we may

think he explains the Memex as a device inserted in the everyday life

context of the user:

It consists of a desk, and while it can presumably be operated from a distance,

it is primarily the piece of furniture at which he works. On the top are slanting

translucent screens, on which material can be projected for convenient read-

ing. There is a keyboard, and sets of buttons and levers. Otherwise it looks

like an ordinary desk.

This idea was already the prediction of the personal computer and table-

tops. Although the article was published in 1945, Bush statements are still

currents and it is a reference for the development of VLEs as his visions

are a process of accessing information and creating relation between them.

In his words “the process of tying two items together is the important

thing.” The point here is not only the development of a technology to re-

cord information but a device to support the user’s research and learn.

The device provides the flexibility but the user makes the connections.

Seymour Papert and Alan Kay demonstrated through practical projects

how computational devices and tools can be helpful for learning, mainly

children. They showed that it is possible to use new technologies to pro-

vide an engaging system which triggers in the user mind the reasoning in

order to accomplish some tasks. Papert (1980), who developed the con-

34

cept of Constructionism influenced by Jean Piaget’s Construtivism, de-

fended that the most important thing is to demonstrate how children can

learn using computers and how the computer can change the way they

learn. Papert invented an ‘object-to-think-with’, the ‘Logo Turtle’. Defined

by him as “a computer-controlled cybernetic animal”, the Turtle is a

system which is programmed by children typing commands on a keyboard

and developing mathematical logical25. Papert’s system is focused on the

mind, using the computer as an instrument to help children to build their

own intellectual structures to explor and learn in an engaged process.

Alan Kay was deeply influenced by the Papert’s Logo programming lan-

guage. Besides the creation of the concepts of the Dynabook – a system

based in learning theories - and Graphic User Interface (GUI)26, Kay has

recently participated in the creation of the open source Squeak – dynamic

media software based in Smalltalk (object-oriented programming)27. The

system is a good reference for those who want to develop virtual envi-

ronments for education as it has a dynamic structure - objects can be cre-

ated, modified, positioned in the way the user desires – and is based in

constructive process of learning - the student is allowed to construct

her/his own knowledge (figure 11).

25 Seymour Papert. Mindstorms : children, computers and powerful ideas. 1980. 26 http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/GASCH.KAY.HTML 27 Squeak is an open, highly-portable Smalltalk implementation whose virtual machine is written en-tirely in Smalltalk, making it easy to debug, analyze, and change. To achieve practical performance, a translator produces an equivalent C program whose performance is comparable to commercial Small-talks. Free for download at http://www.squeak.org/Download/. Source: http://www.squeak.org/About/

35

Figure 11. Squeak 3.8. Source: http://www.squeak.org/

The systems developed by Bush, Papert and Kay are an inspiration for

those who desire to use technology as a tool for learning processes. They

designed electronic environments that are user-centred and not techno-

logical-centred. In on-line distance learning, those technologies are the

tool to help the student to access the system content and the subject con-

tent in an engaged context. They are responsible for supporting the stu-

dent’s interaction with the system and the accomplishment of student’s

intentions. The new technologies for education, and those which will be

soon invented, should be used to meet the student’s demands, intentions

and goals.

36

Part II

Design, Media and Virtual Learning Environment:

a practical proposal

This part presents a proposal for an interactive learning environment,

based in all theories discussed in the Part I. Each specific aspect of the

system is offered in topics in order to elucidate the different approaches of

the new VLE from those that already exist. Many problems arose during

the development of this project but at the same time they were important

to clarify how the design of VLE is a complex challenge and involves many

fields of knowledge.

Students, teachers, tutors and system developers that are in contact with

VLEs provided by universities and institutions can easily perceive how

those virtual environments are limited in interaction and engagement. As

commented in the first part of this project, most of the systems are de-

signed to deliver information instead of being a place for studying. The

development of the ideas presented in this project was motivated by the

lack of interactive VLEs in the market and the desire to explore new possi-

bilities for the design of learning systems.

The proposal for the design of the interactive learning environment was

based in five main ideas: tabletop - technology inserted in the studying

context - already designed and in development by many research centres;

metaphor, the design of the studying desktop to represent system content

and subject content; perspective, the student’s visibility of the system;

eye tracking, the response of the system to the student movements and

point of view; and on-line interactive media, an attempt to explore how

the different media presented in the electronic system should be con-

nected to each other supporting the student’s activities and process of

learning.

37

It is important to stress that the project is not focussed in the design of

the system but, instead, it is an attempt to demonstrate the shift of con-

cepts when an interactive environment is designed based in the theories

explained in the first part of this text.

Tabletop

Since the first ideas arose for the development of this project, there was a

deep concern in design a system that could be inserted naturally in the

student context. It means that the system should participate in the stu-

dent learning environment in a way that the student could feel comfort-

able, confident and motivated.

Although the vertical screens presented today in personal computers are

already a common sense, it was realized that it wasn’t following the natu-

ral way of people to study (figure 12). The idea of the use of a digital ta-

bletop seemed to be more adequate to the user as its form provides a

natural presence in the student context and allows a good relation with

other objects that belongs to the study desk. The system, which is inter-

acted by touch screen, could provide connection with other devices, such

as light pen, scanner, printer, and so forth, creating an integrated envi-

ronment.

38

Figure 12. The user context.

Perspective and movement

When the first prototype for the VLE of this project was designed - an at-

tempt to visualize the metaphor of a real desktop - a problem was faced:

the perspective. How do we see objects and what happen when they

move? Objects increase the size when they are close to the user and de-

crease the size when they are far. Objects presented different sides when

they are in the viewer left side or right side. It was realized that the per-

spective of the system content should correspond to the point of the view

of the student and it should correct the perspective when a change of

state occurred.

Although the desktop in a tabletop is only a representation of a real envi-

ronment and simulates the objects as they were in three-dimensional

form, it was decided that the perspective of the system content should be

39

as realistic as possible, as the intention in this project was to develop a

learning environment connected to the student’s learning space.

Perspective was an important insight and concern in the development in

the project. Associate perspective and movement in the design of a learn-

ing system is a technological challenge but increase many possibilities for

the student perception and cognition.

Metaphor

Malone’s discussions about how people organize their desks were impor-

tant to confirm that a desk is an important space for people access and

interact with information and organize them. The interface of the project

is based in a representation of the student’s environment, a metaphor of a

real studying space connecting the context of the student with the VLE in

a more intuitive and engaging process. This solution can approximate the

outside world and the inside world of the student in an integrate context.

Other important point in the use of the desktop metaphor is the possibility

of the system to change its system content according to the change of the

subject content. The objects, media and tools utilized to study a specific

subject could be different when the subject changes, creating different

environments in the same system.

40

Figure 13. The student desk interface.

Eye tracking

As soon as the perspective problem was realized and solved, another pos-

sibility arose: the system could adapt to the user movements using the

technology of eye tracking – another tool that has been intensely re-

searched. The interface could be dynamic and self-oriented according to

the student position. This idea could create the feeling of a more realistic

and engaging environment.

Eye tracking is a technological possibility that can provide to the user, in

this case to the student, an environment that is user-centred. The system

proposed is dynamic and interactive, contributing to the involvement of

the user in the environment.

41

Interactive Medias in an interactive environment

As explained in the first part of this project, there is a fragmentation in

the VLEs when the media and the subject content available are presented

separately (different “windows”) and disconnected from each other. The

system does not provide to the student the possibility of work with differ-

ent media at the same time, and more than that, the system does not al-

low the user to connect and transform the information present in the dif-

ferent media, helping them to create their own assumptions about those

connections.

This problem was definitive for the decision to design an environment

which is similar to a study desk, as this form would give a space for the

presentation of all media at the same time and for the interaction and

connection with them. The proposal is not only to provide interactive elec-

tronic media, which already exist in most of VLEs, but allow the student to

connect them and construct their knowledge in the system. It means that

the interactive media is inserted in an interactive environment and not

only delivered in it.

42

Conclusion

The design of an interactive learning environment should take into consid-

eration the student and her/his educational process. To research about

how students interact with their learning environment, which context they

are inserted and how technologies can help them to study are important

issues to design a system that helps students to be engaged and com-

promised with their intentions.

PACT and Content concept is an attempt to cover all issues related to a

user-centred interaction an it was a support to clarify how VLEs should be

developed. An educational interactive system should be based in the qual-

ity of the student activities with the system content and subject content.

The development of VLEs is not only the design of the system but the un-

derstanding of the entire context that the student is inserted. The new

technologies are a support for a better interaction between the student

and the content and must be well explored to sustain an interactive edu-

cation.

The student learning process involves several issues and this project was

an attempt to cover some of them. The learning environment proposed is

a representation of how a VLE can be different from those existent today

and much more adequate to the student demands. The construction of a

VLE that entail the student’s mental process can become real in an inter-

active system that takes into consideration the student demands and

her/his process of learning.

43

References

Benyon, David & Turner, Phil & Turner, Susan. Designing interactive sys-tems: people, activities, contexts, technologies. Pearson Education: Eng-land, 2005. Bush, Vannevar. As we may think. The Atlantic Monthly, July 1945. Site: Dillenbourg, Pierre. Virtual Learning Environment. 2000. http://tecfa.unige.ch/tecfa/publicat/dil-papers-2/Dil.7.5.18.pdf Dupuis, Elizabeth A. Developing web-based instruction: planning, design-ing, managing, and evaluating for results. Facet Publishing: USA, 2003. Ficher, Gustave-Nicholas. Individuals and environment: a psychosocial approach to workspace. Gerike GmbH: Berlin, 1997.

Foley, James [et al.]. Computer Graphics: principles and practice. Addi-son-Wesley: USA, 1990.

Johnson-Laird, P. N. The computer and the mind: an introduction to cogni-tive science. Fontana Paperbacks: London, 1998. Kay, Alan. User Interface: a personal view. In The art of human-computer interface design. Laurel, Brenda. Addison-Wesley: USA, 1995. Lidwell, William & Holden, Kritina & Butler, Jill. Universal Principles of De-sign. Rockport: USA, 2003. Malone, Thomas W. How do people organize their desks? Implications for the design of office information systems. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 1983. http://delivery.acm.org McClintic, Miranda. Content: a contemporary focus 1974-1984. In Con-tent: making meaning and referentiality. Smithsonian: USA, 1985. Newell, A., and Simon, H. A. Human Problem Solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 1972. Norman, Donald A. The Design of everyday things. MIT Press: USA, 1999. Papert, Seymour. Mindstorms: children, computers and powerful ideas. The Harvester Press: Brighton, 1980. Pont, Tony. Developing effective training skills: from personal insight to organisational performance. CIPD: London, 2003. Talbot, Christine. Studying at a Distance: a guide for students. UK: Open University Press, 2005