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

Maija's Review of Representation (Activity A2a)

Cloud created by:

Maija Perfiljeva
25 March 2013

4Ts Model & CADMOS

Readability: good for both systems, clearly presents the flow of the lesson and sequence of activities. I found 4Ts model easier to follow visually, as there were no gaps in the flow if only trainer or only students were involved. However, CADMOS seemed to be better at explaining sequence of activities performed by different participants (e.g. in CADMOS it was clear whether trainer's part comes before or after the activities of students).

Expressiveness: CADMOS has added benefit of two perspectives: conceptual and flow, other than that, both systems seemed equally capable of presenting overall sequence and idea behind learning activities and required equipment. 

Utility: I found the description of activities lacking in both cases. In my workplace lesson plans are often used to support SMEs with basic trainer skills, therefore, we focus a lot on facilitation suggestions, so for our purposes this wouldn't be enough.  For example, 4Ts models says "Trainer shows pictures", but it is not clear what else the trainer is supposed to do while showing pictures (talk, explain, highlight?), or where/how do they show pictures (projector, photos?).  

I would use something like 4Ts model to create a mockup of a training program for review with stakeholders and/or peers, before developing our regular full package. However, I would modify it and add a column for important callouts (or something like that), as we often need to highlight important points of the activities to the SME who is facilitating the session, as some SMEs are known to favour different approaches to or views on same subjects and we need to make sure that every training sessions delivers same message.

Extra content

Embedded Content


Contribute to the discussion

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