Mantzara M00

How to make picture slideshow

with music and special effects

in Windows Movie Maker 2.1

through 2 YouTube videos?

PROFESSOR: Dr. Rosamund

TUTOR: Dr. Federica Olivero

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART1: Introduction….……………………………………..…….…………….…….2

PART2: Literature Review………………………….………………..……….…..4

A. Affordances of technology……….………………………..………………...….………..…..4

B. Learning through videos……………………..……………………………….…………..…..6

PART3: Learning situation……………………………..…………………...…...7

A. Aim, place, time, subject & technological background, resources,

ICT tools…............7

B. Reasons for choosing the two YouTube

Videos..........................................................

.8

C. Description of the learning process…………..…………………………..…......

………….9

1

NAME: MANTZARA MARIA

PART4: Analysis of the learning process..……….……………....13

A. The affordances of the two YouTube videos…………..…..……………………….……………...

…..13

B. Synthesis affordances………………………………………………………………………………............16

PART5: Conclusion………………………………………………….………………..19

Bibliography………………………….……………..………………………………...…………....…21

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………….….………..24

INTRODUCTION

Many studies have revealed that interaction with computers

can be a very helpful technique for learning (Light &

Littleton, 1999). In this paper, the term “learning” is

considered from Duffy’s and Cunningham’s (1996, p. 171)

approach as “an active process of constructing rather than

acquiring knowledge”. From a similar perspective. Schank

2

(1994), states that learning is linked with users’

activity and not with learners’ passivity. In other words,

learning is “doing”, not just “watching”.

This process of learning can be better understood through

the use of videos (Duffy & Cunningham, 1996). For that

reason, videos provide the learners with many

opportunities to perform an interactive learning practice

(Boyle, 1997). Therefore, videos can guide the learner

into more efficient forms of learning (Schwan & Riempp,

2004).

A good deal of evidence has proven that videos can be

applied as pedagogically meaningful means in learning

development (Karppinen, 2005). That is so because videos

affect cognitively and emotionally the learners (Berk,

2009). In addition, it has been proven that the impact of

videos on understanding is fundamental ( Zahn et. al,

2004). The study of Hartsell & Yuen (2006) points out

that, provided that detailed information is given, a video

can be a potent educational tool that could illustrate the

way things work, something in which texts and graphics are

seldom effective.

3

Analyzing videos can make a significant and positive

difference in the way learners determine the content of

the video (Gupta et al., 2009).

The word “video” has been used for different purposes.

According to (Schank, 1994, p.69) “Students learn from

videos if they watch them while they are involved in

realistic action.” In this study, the learner is engaged

in real/ practical activity whereas at the same time he or

she is watching the video/ instructions. Therefore, in

this paper the words “video tutorial” are referred to as,

simply, “video”.

In my own experience as a teacher of primary school in

Greece, I used, to a great extent, videos from You Tube in

my teaching and the learning outcomes were encouraging.

This assignment is focused on an informal learning

situation in which the learner (Vito), attempts to gain

knowledge of how to make a picture slideshow with music

4

and special effects in windows movie maker 2.1 through 2

YouTube videos that I chose.

This paper intends to investigate the following research

questions:

How did the learner learn to create a picture

slideshow with music and special effects through the

chosen You Tube videos?

What are the affordances of the chosen You Tube

videos?

The learning situation will be analysed with the

theoretical framework; “Affordances of technology”.

In the first part are described and explained the concepts

of Affordance. Afterwards, follows description and

analysis of the subject’s learning practice. Finally, some

reflections and suggestions are presented.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A). Affordances of technology

There are various definitions of the term of affordance.

(Hartson, 2003)

5

The psychologist Gibson (1979) was the first to try and

define the term affordance; (McGrenere, 2000)

“The affordances of the environment are what it offers

the animal, what it provides or furnishes, either for good

or ill. The verb to afford is found in the dictionary, but

the noun affordance is not. I have made it up.” (Gibson,

1979, p. 127). The Gibsonian term refers, to some extent,

to both the surroundings and the being, in an approach

that no presented name does (Bower, 2008). “It implies

the complementarity of the animal and the environment.”

(Gibson, 1979, p. 127)

Analyzing Gibson’s term of affordances, it could be

inferred that ‘offerings’ are “action possibilities in the

environment in relation to action capabilities of an

actor” (McGrenere, 2000, p.3). Furthermore, the actions of

the user do not depend on his culture, experience or

ability to perceive. Therefore, affordance whether it

exists or it does not. (McGrenere, 2000)

In contrast, Norman (1988, p.9) defines affordance as the

“perceived and actual properties of the thing, primarily

6

those fundamental properties that determine just how the

thing could possibly be used”. One good example which

illustrates Norman’s concept of affordances is; “A chair

affords (‘is for’) support and, therefore, affords

sitting. A chair can also be carried” (Norman, 1988, p.9).

In other words, the design of an object reveals to us the

way this object is supposed to be used.

Norman’s approach of Affordances is focused on the fact

that the existence of these perceived properties is not

always obvious and definite. He argues that these

properties reveal and suggest the way of usage. In

addition, he mentions that the knowledge, experience and

culture of the user can designate the difficulty of an

action. (McGrenere, 2000)

It is worth mentioning though, the difference in Norman’s

and Gibson’s definition of affordance as it highlights

whether the word contains usability or just usefulness

(Kirschner et al, 2004). According to Gibson, the term

“affordance” is clarified by what is afforded from the

design (usefulness). On the other hand, Norman’s frame of

7

reference emphasizes; the way that an object is perceived

by the user (usability). (McGrenere, 2000)

B). Learning through videos

Research has shown that Video is a powerful learning aid

as it affects both mind and senses (Berk, 2009).

From an educational point of view, results of experiments

showed that videos learning value is of great importance

(Zhang, 2006). Videos can draw learners’ attention and

trigger their anticipation during the learning process

(Berk, 2009).

8

What is more, a good number of researchers as well as

educators have demonstrated that videos help learners to

focus on the task (Berk, 2009). The reason was that videos

can present data in an eye-catching and consistent way

(Zhang, 2006). Moreover, videos make the lesson more

compelling (Berk, 2009) as they enable learners to watch

actual items (Zhang, 2006). In other words, videos enlarge

the deeper learning and help in stimulation of abstract

ideas. Furthermore, videos can also assist in the

improvement of students’ memory regarding to content

(Berk, 2009) as they enhance students’ interest and

curiosity in topics of learning (Zhang, 2006).

As for the research on the educational use, videos create

powerful and deeply engraved visual images (Asensio &

Young, 2002) and they enable learners to observe sequences

in motion (Zhang, 2006). In addition, videos can exemplify

the way something works by showing examples of realistic

scenes (Hartsell & Yuen, 2006).

Last but not least, many studies revealed that videos

enable learners with interest and enjoyment during the

learning process (White et al., 2000).

9

LEARNING SITUATION

All started when my friend Vito wanted to learn how to make presentation with

music and special effects in windows movie maker 2.1 and asked my help.

A. Aim, place, time, subject & technological

background, resources, ICT tools

The purpose of the learning situation is to learn how to

make a picture slideshow with music and special effects in

windows movie maker 2.1 through two YouTube videos. The

learning process took place on 18th November 2012 at home.

The learner was my friend Vitο, α 25 years old Italian

male with poor technological background, as he mentioned.

He stated that he had never created or edited a

presentation or video, he had never used windows movie

maker or related ICT tool. However he knows how to watch

videos in YouTube and he uses this ICT tool for watching

video clips and movies and not for educational purposes.

10

Also, he stated that he has basic knowledge of Internet

and Microsoft office.

The two ICT tools used were; YouTube videos1 (as

resources) and windows movie maker 2.1.

B. Reasons for choosing the two YouTube videos

When, Vito asked my help, I did a survey on the internet and I tried to find the

most suitable videos for his educational case.

While searching on the internet, I came across a set of

videos related to “how to make a picture slideshow with

music and special effects in windows movie maker”. I chose

YouTube for three basic reasons; firstly, it is very

popular and it is becoming a powerful source of

information. “YouTube has become the most successful

Internet site providing a new generation of short video

sharing service”. (Cheng et al., 2007, p. 229). In

addition, many people use YouTube to learn, since the

1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLzc0OVcFrI and

http://youtu.be/_7JniZzdAdg.

11

learning experience is enhanced innovatively (Bloom,

2009). The third reason for chosen YouTube as a source of

information is its accessibility (Bower, 2008). Not only

is it accessible from all around the world, but it is free

of charge as well.

There are several aspects of videos for learning that

should be taken into consideration. A lot of research and

educational assessment is needed before choosing videos

for learning purposes (Jones and Cuthrell, 2011).

Specifically, I selected the two videos because they were

the most comprehensible and high-rated compared to other

videos in YouTube. Moreover, the first video2 was chosen

because it was of high quality. Also, in the video the

mouse is highlighted with a yellow circle. As a result, a

dynamic visualization is created and the learning

procedure is facilitated (Najjar, 2005). Furthermore, the

selection of the second video3 is based on the fact that

it is well-structured. What I mean by this is that it

presents the learning process, step by step, clearly and

2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLzc0OVcFrI3 http://youtu.be/_7JniZzdAdg

12

slowly. What is more, the second video had many views and

a lot of positive comments.

Finally, both the two videos were short in length; 05:51

and 08:04 minutes respectively.

C. Description of the learning process

After Vito’s acceptance to be my subject the learning process started. During

the entire learning session I recorded both the screen of the pc and the facial

expressions of my subject with camtasia studio 8. Following that, an interview

took place. (Appendix: figure 1)

How Vito learned to create a presentation through using

these two YouTube videos

During the whole learning session Vito went through the

same process several times; he was watching the YouTube

videos and occasionally using the pause function for a

couple of minutes. While the YouTube videos were paused he

tried to do on windows movie maker exactly what he was

taught in the YouTube videos. He didn’t use the drop menus

of windows movie maker and he didn’t seek out any other

13

external help, out from the two YouTube videos. He skipped

the parts of the videos in which he wasn’t interested in

and he watched again the ones he found difficult. There

were some other aspects in this learning process worth

mentioning.

Subject’s Interaction with the first YouTube video

To begin with, Vito clicked on the first video to play and

the learning situation was on the go. Vito played and

paused the first YouTube video many times. Each time that

the video was paused, he was creating his project, step by

step, as the video taught him. So, at the first stage,

Vito saved from windows movie maker his project in the

same destination as the video presented. Further, Vito

adjusted the volume of the YouTube video according to his

preference. After increasing the sound level he continued

to watch and pause throughout the remaining parts of the

YouTube video. He followed the same process by watching

and pausing the video till he had imported the images and

the music in his project. After that, Vito was not

interested in the next part (preview of the slideshow in

14

the YouTube video) so he skipped that part by forwarding

the YouTube video. However, he understood that he

forwarded a lot the video so he went back and watched a

small part again. I have to point out the fact that in the

end of the first video Vito skipped the last part of the

video since he didn’t want to publish his video before

inserting special effects. That was exactly the reason why

he went on viewing the second YouTube video.

Subject’s Interaction with the second YouTube video

Vito played the second YouTube video mentioned earlier. In

this second video Vito followed the same procedure,

playing and pausing while viewing the video clip. While he

was going in windows movie maker and acting exactly as he

instructed in the video, without browsing through the

menus or any other help in windows movie maker. What was

noticeable was the fact that while he pressed the play

button this time, he went closer to the screen and he

15

tried to zoom in the letters. Subsequently, he paused the

video again and he wrote in the effect slide exactly what

he saw in the YouTube video. He continued by playing the

YouTube video but it was obvious from his facial

expressions that he couldn’t understand a small part. He

rewind the video to that earlier scene and played that

particular part for one more time. He managed to do the

task in windows movie maker and he continued to watch the

YouTube video. Later Vito skipped the next part by

forwarding the video (presentation in You Tube of all the

special effects from windows movie maker). He continued

watching the You Tube video and he skipped again the last

part in which uploading a video in YouTube is explained.

In the end, an interview took place;

IMAGE 1: VITO’S INTERACTION WITH THE 2 YOUTUBE VIDEOS

16

1 YouTube video

2 YouTube video

volume

Vito zooms

in the screen

Pause of the You Tube tutorial and Vito’s interaction with

vo

Subject’s Interview after completing the project

According to Vito, despite the fact that he found some

parts more complicated, he really enjoyed his learning

experience. He stated that the YouTube videos helped him

to overcome all his difficulties. In other words, he

mentioned that viewing the YouTube videos enabled him to

manage and create the presentation he wanted because he

could pause, rewind and forward along the YouTube videos.

He mentioned that he would feel confident to create

another picture slideshow without recourse to any

available help in the use application. He said that he

couldn’t have managed to do that without those two YouTube

videos. Most importantly he added that what he had been

watching in the videos had enabled him to accomplish his

goal, and succeeded in his project. He stated that he

didn’t notice the full screen button. In his opinion, the

17

first video helped him more, as it was easier (comparing

to the second one) for him in this video to see the mouse

browsing in the menus. He also mentioned that he learnt

how to make a picture slideshow with music and special

effects and his presentation was ready. He really felt the

satisfaction of a job well done. He managed to do it by

himself and only with the help from these two YouTube

videos. He stated that he had never used YouTube to learn

something before, but he was going to use it from then on

because he found it interesting and not as hard as he had

first thought.

ANALYSIS OF THE LEARNING PROCESS

A.The affordances of the two YouTube videos

18

In this paper the meaning of affordance is clarified by

Norman’s definition (1988, p.9); affordances are

“perceived and as actual properties of the videos which

decide the way it can be used”. However, Vito’s perception

is the important factor which determines whether the

affordance exists or not. So, despite the fact that real

and perceived affordances are contained in the videos, the

perceived affordances of Vito are valuable to him. This

fact indicates that there is distinction between designing

the affordance and designing the information. For example,

Vito came closer to the screen to read the letters, so he

didn’t perceive the affordance of the full screen. The

affordances of this video are based on how Vito’s possible

actions are sent out or made observable to him. The

YouTube videos provide him the opportunity of full screen,

but Vito didn’t perceive that actual property. He didn’t

notice that possible action and as he mentioned later it

wasn’t useful to him since he could read the letters

without using the full screen option. Therefore, despite

the intention of the designer and despite the existence of

the full screen affordance, Vito didn’t perceive it.

19

According to Norman’s (1988) view, the two YouTube videos

afford:

Watching

This is an actual characteristic of the two videos

(high definition). Gradually, both videos also offer

detailed description of the process. So, the two

videos afforded watching them.

Vito perceived this affordance and as he mentioned in

the interview, he found it easier to watch the first

video once the mouse had a yellow circle around it.

Focusing

The two videos offer the option to watch them in full

screen. Vito didn’t perceive that affordance. When it

was necessary for him to zoom in an image, he just

put his head closer to the screen. As he stated in

the interview he didn’t notice that function of the

videos.

20

Listening

Another actual affordance of the two You Tube videos

is the fact that they had sound. The sound in both

videos was clear. Both speakers gave instructions of

the learning procedure. As a result, both videos

afford listening to them.

Vito was capable to hear the instructions of how to

make a picture slideshow with music in the first

video and with effects in the second one. He

perceived that affordance and he adjusted the volume

at will.

Playing – pausing-Forwarding & Playing back

The play, pause forward and play back ability of the

two videos give the property to the learner to

control his learning pace. In other words, the

“play”, “pause” and ‘’backward’’ properties of the

video enable the user to replay the most important or

21

difficult parts. On the other hand, the ‘’forward’’

button enables the learner to control the learning

rate and offer him the capability to jump to the next

part following his wishes. By saying the above, as it

is natural, the video affords playing, pausing, back

warding and forwarding.

Vito used all these buttons and he perceived all the

video-produce affordances. The affordnaces of the

video supported his learning process; He was pausing

and playing the video during all the learning

process, therefore, he perceived these affordances to

a great extent. What is more, he forwarded the video

and he skipped some parts in which he wasn’t

interested in (preview of the slideshow in the

YouTube video & presentation in You Tube of all the

special effects from windows movie maker). He also

played the video backward when he came up against the

difficult parts (put special effects).

22

Reading

The two YouTube videos also offer the choice of

English subtitles. However, McGrenere et al. (2000,

p. 181) mentioned that according to Norman “an

affordance can be dependent on experience, knowledge

or culture”.

Vito didn’t perceive that actual property of the

videos and he didn’t use the subtitles. He is not a

native speaker and this information involves the

written analysis in comments of the procedure of how

to make a picture slideshow with music and special

effects in English. So Vito might not have perceived

this affordance or he might not have found it useful

according to his culture.

Writing, linking and searching

As previously mentioned, the video cited in YouTube,

enabled the user to write comments, to search for

relevant videos and to follow other links of how to

make a picture slideshow in windows movie maker 2.1.

23

Vito decided not to use these affordances as they

weren’t useful to him. As he mentioned, he was

covered from the provided and detailed knowledge from

the two YouTube videos that he had already seen. 

B.Synthesis affordances;

“Synthesis affordances; is the capacity to combine

multiple tools together to create a mixed media

learning environment (combine ability), the extent to

which the functions of tools and the content of

resources can be integrated (integrate-ability).”

(Bower, 2008, p.127).

24

The learning process of Vito wasn’t so simple. In

his effort to learn how to make his presentation he

combined two ICT tools; YouTube (as resource) and

Windows Movie Maker. As it was mentioned, Vito was

accomplishing in Windows Movie Maker exactly the task

from the YouTube videos. According to Oliver (2005)

composite things could be too difficult to learn

(e.g. like Microsoft Word). Windows Movie Maker has

not only basic but advanced features as well, so it

is considered as a complex application. In addition,

Vito didn’t investigate the set of choices that

windows movie maker offer and he didn’t gain new

knowledge from it, as he stated in the interview.

For the purpose of this study I am going to analyse

the most important affordances that Vito perceived by

using windows movie maker;

The perceived affordances of Windows Movie Maker

Watching

25

Vito perceived this affordance, as he was able to

watch the preview of his presentation (genuine

property of windows movie maker).

Listening

Vito was capable to hear the song that he imported in

his presentation’s preview. Also, it was obvious from

his facial expressions that he perceived the sound of

the mouse when he clicked on the menus.

Video-producing ; Playing – pausing-Forwarding & Playing back

Vito perceived only the play and pause ability.He

used them in the preview of his video. The other two

abilities (Forward & Play back) weren’t useful to him

and he didn’t use them at all.

Writing

He perceived that affordance as he wrote the name of

his project and messages in the session title for

importing ‘’special’’ effects.

26

Saving file, importing (images & music )and setting effects

Vito perceived the three these abilities as he saved

his file. Afterwards he imported images and music in

his presentation and at in the end he managed to

insert effects into his slideshow.

CONCLUSION

Using YouTube videos as an example, this informal

learning situation shows that learning how to make a

picture slideshow with music and special effects in

windows movie maker 2.1. is no complicated matter. On

the contrary, it is pleasurable and effective.

Vito was excited about this learning experience and

as he mentioned, he is going to use YouTube videos

more often. According to Berk (2009, p.14) that’s

27

happening because “the research on videos and

multimedia learning provides an empirical foundation

for their use in teaching, especially with

introductory courses and novice learners, to increase

memory, comprehension, understanding, and deeper

learning”.

In my opinion, the rapid evolution of the Information

Communication Technologies, show us that written

instructions of how to make a presentation with music

and special effects in an ICT tool (like windows

movie maker) will probably disappear in the future. That

is based on the fact that an enormous number of

videos exist not only in YouTube but on the whole web

(Cheng et al., 2007).

All in all, in this paper I considered why videos are

important in teaching. After that, I analysed the

literature review of affordances from two different

approaches (Norman’s and Gibson’s) and I examined how

videos enhance learning. I described an informal

learning situation through the use of two YouTube

videos and I justified my choice of these two

28

specific videos. Further, I analysed the learning

process and the affordances not only of these

particular videos but of windows movie maker as well.

I finally concluded with a forecast for the future

about videos. However, what will be exciting and

motivating for further investigations would be a

contrast of learning how to make a presentation

through videos from YouTube compared to learning

through Skype with the help of a tutor. In which

situation, the user will perceive more affordances?

That will be an interesting quest for future

educators.

29

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Asensio, M., & Young, C. (2002). A learning and teaching

perspective. In S. Thornhill, M. Asensio, & C. Young

(Eds.). Click and go video. Video streaming—a guide for educational

development. The JISC Click and Go Video Project, 10-19.

Retrieved May 28, 2005, from

http://www.ClickandGoVideo.ac.uk

Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV,

movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the college classroom.

International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1–21.

Bloom, N. (2009). Ya gotta love video. Tooling & Production, 75(3/4),

38–39.

Bower, M. (2008). Affordance analysis – matching learning tasks

with learning technologies. Educational Media International,

45(1), 3–15.

30

Boyle, T. (1997). Design for multimedia learning. Upper Saddle River,

NJ:

Prentice Hall.

Cheng, X. et al. (2007). Understanding the Characteristics of Internet Short

Video Sharing: YouTube as a Case Study, Retrieved July 25, 2007,

from http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.3670

Duffy, T.D., & Cunningham, D.J. (1996). Constructivism:

Implications for

the design and delivery of instruction. In D.H. Jonassen

(Ed.), Handbook of research for educational communications and

technology: A project of the association for educational communications and

technology, (pp. 55-85). New York: Macmillan.

Gibson, J. (1979). The ecological approach to human perception. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin.

Gupta, A. et al. (2009) Understanding videos, constructing plots

learning a visually grounded storyline model from annotated

videos. Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, 2009.CVPR 2009, 2012-

2019.

Retrivieved June, 20-25, 2009, from

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?

tp=&arnumber=5206492&tag=1

31

Hammond, M. (2009). What is an affordance and can it help us

understand the use of ICT in education? Education and

Information Technologies, 15(3), 205-217.

Hartsell, T., & Yuen, S. (2006). Video streaming in online

learning. AACE Journal, 14(1), 31-43.

Hartson, H.R. (2003). Cognitive, physical, sensory, and

functional affordances in interaction design. Behaviour and

Information Technology, 22(5), 315–338.

Hébert, S., Peretz, I. (1997). Recognition of music in long-term

memory: Are melodic and temporal patterns equal partners?

Memory and Cognition, 25, 518–533.

Jones, T., Cuthrell, K. (2011). YouTube: Educational Potentials

and Pitfalls, Computers in the Schools. Computers in the Schools,

75-85.

Rertrieved November 27, 2012, from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/07380569.2011.55

3149

Karppinen, P. (2005). Meaningful learning with digital and online

videos: Theoretical perspectives. AACE Journal, 13(3), 233-250.

Kirschner, P. et al. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative

learning environments. Educational Technology Research &

Development, 52(3), 47–66.

32

Light, P., & Littleton, K. (1999). Introduction: Getting IT

together. In K. Littleton & P. Light (Eds.), Learning

with computers. Analysing productive interaction, (pp. 1-9).

London: Routledge.

McGrenere, J., Ho, W. (2000). Affordances:  Clarifying and

evolving a concept. Graphical Interface, 1-8. Retrieved November

26, 2012, from

http://teaching.polishedsolid.com/spring2006/iti/read/affor

dances.pdf

Najjar, J. L. (2005), A Review of the Fundamental Effects of Multimedia

Information Presentation on Learning. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of

Technology.

Norman, D.A. (1988). The Psychology of Everyday things. New York: Basic

Books.

Oliver, M. (2005) The Problem with Affordance. E-Learning and Digital

Media, 2(4), 402-413.

Schank, R.C. (1994) Active learning through multimedia.

MultiMedia, IEEE, 1(1), 69 – 78. 

Schwan, S., Riempp, R. (2004) The cognitive benefits of

interactive videos: learning to tie nautical knots.

Learning and Instruction, 14(3), 293–305.

33

Zahn, C. et al. (2004). Learning with hyperlinked videos—design

criteria and efficient strategies for using audiovisual

hypermedia Learning and Instruction. Learning and Instruction,

275–291. Retrieved August 18,2004, from

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095947520

4000325

Zhang, D. et al. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning:

Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning

effectiveness. Information & Management 43(1), 15–27.

White, C. et al. (2000). Students’ perceived value of video in a

multimedia language course. Educational Media International,

37(3), 167-175.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page

http://www.youtube.com/

APPENDIX

34

FIGURE 1

Description of the learning process (images)

35

1

2

3

36

4

5

6

37

7