A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SPACE FOR LEARNING DESIGN REPRESENTATIONS AND TOOLS

Cloud created by:

Francesca Pozzi
15 November 2012

DRAFT

by Pozzi F. , Persico D., Earp J.

 

Extra content

Embedded Content

A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SPACE FOR LEARNING DESIGN REPRESENTATIONS AND TOOLS

A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SPACE FOR LEARNING DESIGN REPRESENTATIONS AND TOOLS

added by Francesca Pozzi

(REVISED) A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SPACE FOR LEARNING DESIGN REPRESENTATIONS AND TOOLS

(REVISED) A MULTI-DIMENSIONAL SPACE FOR LEARNING DESIGN REPRESENTATIONS AND TOOLS

added by Francesca Pozzi

Contribute

Andrew Brasher
6:57pm 28 December 2012 (Edited 7:55am 3 January 2013)


The chapter is well written in that the language used presents the ideas in an easy to read fashion. However, the structure of the chapter confused me in that there is no section which clearly states what the dimensions of the framework are. After reading the “Discussion: mapping representations within the framework” section I believe that the framework consists of the dimensions presented in figures 1 and 2, and dos not include other dimensions mentioned elsewhere in the chapter (for example, the continuums identified by Gibbons et al. on page 2). I suggest that after the discussion of various dimensions (and before the “Discussion: mapping representations within the framework” section), that the authors clearly summarise the dimensions of their proposed framework. If some of the dimensions discussed (e.g. those attributed to Gibbons et l.) are not used in the final framework it would be useful to know why not.

 

In the "Discussion: mapping representations within the framework” section, several representations are discussed, but not  mapped onto the axes used in figures 1 and 2. It would be helpful to see the representations discussed presented on the axes used for figures 1 and 2.

 

On page 9, the authors discuss  representations which combine visual and textual elements, and state that positioning these 'double representations' within the framework is 'more complex'. Though the authors do return to  this issue within their conclusions, I would like to see the authors discuss the additional complexity posed by these representations, and suggest some first steps (e.g. specific research questions) which would be  a move towards a framework which could cope with such 'double'  representations.

 

The conclusions  state that the framework is 'fairly sound', and that 'the main aim of the framework is to help practitioners orient themselves in the field and researchers identify areas where further investigation is needed'. 'Fairly sound' seems a strange phrase to use! If it is to be desscribed as 'sound, then I think that the authors need to present some evidence that it does help practitioners orient themselves, and/or that it helps researchers identify areas needing further research before describing it as 'fairly' sound. One way of doing this would be to use the framework to identify some specific areas for further research into learning design represntations.

 

Overall, I found the paper interesting and it  makes a useful contribution towards classifying and relating different learning design representations.

 

Best wishes

 

Andrew

Simos Retalis
3:57pm 5 June 2013


This chapter is well written. It discusses various representations of learning designs. It can act as a complementary resource to from other chapters in this field that discuss about LD representations.

There only few issues that need to be clarified:

  • On page 3, the authors claim that LD textual representation “facilitates instantiation of the design artifact in a specific context and thus increases the potential for reuse”. This is not entirely correct due to the ambiguity of the language used by designers as well as the non standardized “skeleton” of a LD in a textual format. The authors need to elaborate on this topic.
  • On page 8, they claim that Pedagogical Patterns help in communicating the overall design and sharing it with others for reuse. They do a comparison between Design Narratives and  Pedagogical Patterns. I believe that Flow Learning Patterns, like the CFLP by Dimitriadis et al., and the e-learning design patterns first appeared at the ELEN EU project and then continued by Goodyear et al., should also be mentioned (apart from the Pedagogical Patterns) since the way of presenting the solution to a pattern is very vivid (it contains graphical elements). Also CFLP have been used widely.
  • Concerning the tools, like WebCollage and CADMOS the authors should mention that their creators’ attempts are to bridge the design and enactment. Thus, not only formal languages aim at enactment but tools have managed to do so quite effectively (WebCollage with .LRN – CADMOS with Moodle).

Overall it is a nice and helpful chapter with excellent references that will attract the attention of the reader.

Francesca Pozzi
12:59pm 21 June 2013


Hi Andrew and Simos,

thank you very much for your useful suggestions, which have helped to improve the paper. 

I think we have adressed all your requests.

Best,

Francesca Donatella and Jeff

Contribute to the discussion

Please log in to post a comment. Register here if you haven't signed up yet.