contradiction within the system and resolving it in order to achieve the
objective.
To make the analytical methodology clearer, let us look at the example of 10
year-old John. John had started constructing a column from the “capital” (the
top part of the column), which he placed in the air and then begun building
downwards by placing each one of the drums underneath. He had managed to
squeeze the last drum under the others and attempted to pick up the column
base. The VE was not programmed to provide any explicit feedback;
however, it was designed with certain features that provided intrinsic
feedback, such as the fact that the column bases could not be moved. This
was the only type of feedback that represented the system’s interactive
capabilities and which implicitly aided John in changing his course of action.
1. Observer: How do you see that this piece goes at the bottom rather than the top?
2. John: It’s the last piece.
3. Observer: How do you know that it is the last piece?
4. John: Because I put that one [showing the bottom last column drum] and saw that
there is no other one that fits below it... Anyway, you can tell it’s the last piece.
5. John: [trying to pick up the last piece and realizing that it doesn’t move] It is glued
on the floor...
6. Observer: Why would it be glued on the floor?
7. John: [thinks for a moment] .. .Oh! So that I can put the other pieces here.
He then took apart the column he had constructed in the air and began
constructing it piece by piece on top of the base by reversing the sequence in
which he was placing the column drums until he reached the capital. The
“Oh!” is the “Eureka” moment that both triggers his change in behaviour and
indicates a change in his conceptions (Figure 1). Furthermore, in the tasks that
followed, John identified the bases immediately, having remembered from
this first task that the bases do not move, and started constructing the columns
from the bottom working up.