Aidan's Representation Comparison - (+ comparison with systems design)

Cloud created by:

Aidan Wallis
1 April 2014

4Ts

Readability

Very readable.  Swim lane, starting at the top and moving down is a simple structure and qute easy to read.  The bubble shapes might make adding detail a little tricky. 

Expressiveness

Quite expressive but everything has to fit the notation.  Could be a difficult fit with some scenarios, particularly if there is any iteration involved or if activities can occur in different orders

Utility (i.e. their usefulness in communicating important aspects of the design).

Could be very useful because it is simple.  On the other hand if the tool is to be used for sharing designs it would require all the sharers to be happy to use this rather structures approach

Adequacy for my design

Mu design would fit this model.  On the other hand my design actually changes in detail each time I use it so I would need to have various versions of the design which would get clunky

Benefits of using this representation for my design

 

 

 

4SPPIces Model and in LdShake

Readability

As far as you can see from the diagram  in http://www.ld-grid.org/resources/learning-designs/pi-project-healthy-eating-activity/4sppices  this is a simple, readable model of a learning process.  Everything is there on one page, so it’s a great summary.  Its not so easy to see what other levels of detail exist.  It appears that you can dive into more detail but that the detail might lose the view of the four PM, P, S H categories. 

Expressiveness

This seems expressive at the summary level but its hard to see how the different elements connect in the design.  There seem to be constraints in that the designer must use the 4 categories but the relationships between them may not be obvious.  This is in contrast to 4Ts and e-Design where relationships between swim lanes is clearer

Utility (i.e. their usefulness in communicating important aspects of the design).

The usefulness of this model may be more connected to the apparent ease with which learning designs may be shared between designers using the LdShake tool.  It is hard to tell with the level of detail provided.  You can get a better idea of what it may like to use the associated the tool from here http://ldshake.upf.edu/ .

Adequacy for my design

My learning design is quite flexible and can change from day to day.  The notation would seem to accommodate this.  On the other hand the summary does not tell you much about how the design actually works.  So I would still prefer 4T or e-Design.

Benefits of using this representation for my design

This model may communicate the essence of my design well by allowing the different elements of the design to be presented.  But the model does not easily show how my learning design would work in practice.  I would prefer to use 4Ts as this method does not provide the detail needed to operate the method.  There seems little room for ad hoc comments. 

 

Comparison with Systems Design

With systems design, there are different design notations that are closely associated with different design methodologies.  For example object oriented systems design  (e.g. see http://www.kilowattsoftware.com/tutorial/rooPresentation/ooFundamentals2.htm) adopts a completely different notation than a more traditional approach – say SSADM (http://www2.docm.mmu.ac.uk/STAFF/M.Stanton/sad/Tutorials/DFDTutorial3.html).  This is because software design has changed over time and design techniques have changed to accommodate the advances in technology.  To me the connection between learning theory and the method for communicating the design is not as developed in the examples of LD models here.  The notation does not seem to connect explicitly with learning theory.  4Ts and e-Design seem convenient notations resembling process design rather than any specific learning theory.  4SPPIces may come closer though the theory is less familiar to me.  Would it be better to find a theory of learning that work first and then find tools that enable the design to be created and shared second?   

Maybe I have missed some obvious points…  I wonder what others think?

Extra content

Embedded Content

Contribute

Contribute to the discussion

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