The web-site is now in readonly mode. Login and registration are disabled. (28 June 2019)

Healthy Eating Representations- CADMOS and 4Ts plus 'Tea for Two' analysis

Cloud created by:

Gary Kitchen
6 April 2018

  • 4 Ts Model -
  • Readability: In my view this was the simplest of the representations to follow both onscreen and cognitively and I wonder if it is the reason it's positioned first. I found it a very practical model to follow and understand as it felt very practice orientated rather than 'acadecmic'. That said I did follow the embedded Learnign Design Grid links in the week 8 activity rather than read the whole of the Perisco et al. (2013) paper.
  • Expressiveness: i thought this representation was clear and explanatory and very much attunded to practitoner use rather than acadecmi study perhaps.
  • Utility: I think the model represents a clear and succinct visualisation of the activity. The easy to grasp 4 Ts (Task, Teams, Tech, Time) are not abstract or theortical concepts and can be grasped easily. Combined with the visualisation in 'swim lanes' this makes for a useful communication of the vital aspects of the activity. I thought the inherent flexibility in sub-dividing Ts' lanes seemed useful and adapatble to whatever scenario may be presented. And, despite the authors noting that the activity being inquiry-led did not fully utilise all of the affordances of 4 Ts it was suitably able and flexible to capture the specifics of the Healthy Eating Task. One small concern is the iterative nature of the tool. It was cited that iteration= messy beginnings for neat outcomes; and while I would not disagree a number of designes in my own context are time bound for go-live type events and so there is a need to resist unnecessary iteration and thus presentation delys, also there might usefully be a schedule for subsequent iteration between repeats of the activity to incorporate and hone the model through reflection etc.
  • CADMOS Model
  • Readability: The CADMOS model starts convincingly highlighting the appeal to practitioners with limited tech skills and knowledge of learning standards which I found immediately attractive. As above it read like a tool that would be practicable and useful once grasped.
  • Expressiveness: This model although displayed as two simple outputs, constantly referres to unshown screens and metadata entries required. As such the paper does not flow as readily as the prose based 4 Ts model paper (agains this was taken from the LD Grid and not the Perisco paper). 
  • Utility: The obvious attraction in terms of utility in my opinion is the Flow Model Output, as with the 4 Ts model if provides a useful visualisation of the 'orchestration of the learing activites'. Additonally, it underpins this with a conceptual model, which given the focus on metadata, should provide a rich view of the acitivites, roles, resource requirements. In contrast to the 4Ts this required breaking down the activities into 14 tasks so presented a more indepth view of the activity. Also ther seemed to be limitations in for example not being able to associate more than one learning goal per task which seems reductive. All told I think the communication of the design was lost  a bit in the unpacking of the more  tool-based explanations of how the system was used to represent the activity contrary to its own affordances.
  • Think aloud: I did think that the CADMOS model seemed very much a deep-design model perhaps useful to a technology-enhanced developer with the ultimate output being a flow diagram that might be useful to teacher/ educator. As the 4Ts model does not extend its system or process unpacking to the actual affordance challenges, it seems a more friendly model for the end user. That may not be the case however.
  • Analysis- Tea for Two design narrative
  • I suspect both sets could easily express and communicate the design of my activity given it was a simple didactic interaction between a teacher and a student. The visual representations would not really test the affordances of each model for example neither a re reallt collaborative designs and there was only one output (final assessment). If looking at the 4 Ts model my narrative can usefully be unpacked as Tasks (steps), Teams (teacher/ pupil), Technology (Kettle, Teabags, Taps, Crockery etc.) but Time might be a challenge as it would need breaking down into too small components. I suspect the CADMOS flow would equally be rather simplistic and the conceptual model and its metadata laregely irrelvant or overkill.

Extra content

Embedded Content


Amanda Wilford
4:22pm 6 April 2018 (Edited 4:24pm 6 April 2018)

Written in error

Amanda Wilford
4:22pm 6 April 2018

I had not heard of CADMOS nor seen it used before and had found it hard to visualise despite the readings . The analysis here has made it clearer and I think could be of use when I teach software so I will revisit . For the learning activity I undertook I think CADMOS would be a challenge to use and this reinforces that one size does not fit all . As educators I imagine a tool box containing a variety of tools and the key is selecting the correct tool fior that situation or knowing when to adapt or combine .

Contribute to the discussion

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