Leo Römers: Activity 2a Comparing representations
Cloud created by:
4 May 2013
I have chosen the 4Ts model and CADMOS for comparison as they show some similarities and of course also some differences.
The 4Ts model is quite comprehensible and readible. It looks like it can be understood with minimal instruction.
Expressiveness is good for linear sequences of activities. In contrast to CADMOS, conceptual model and flow are merged into a single visual model. It is not obvious how more complex flows (e.g. where a student chooses between activities or has to repeat activities) are handled. Tasks have minimal metadata and hence it is not easy to find out whether all required types of tasks (in certain methodologies) are present.
Nevertheless it is very useful to discuss the overall design with various parties.
The CADMOS model has nicely separated conceptual model (static structure) and flow at the cost of now having to deal with two diagrams (and keep them in sync), whereas the 4Ts model represents everything within a single diagram which provides an easier overview.
On the other hand, the CADMOS conceptual model provides for additional expressiveness that cannot easily be achieved with 4Ts, such as typed tasks with more elaborate metadata and a visual link between tasks and resources. Also, the flow apparently (not demonstrated for the Healthy Eating lesson) supports student choices and score conditions.
As the two diagrams have a different focus, audiences are not confronted with details that may not be relevant to them. However, I would expect in practice the two diagrams to be held side by side to have the complete picture visible.
For my Actiity 1, both diagrams would have been suitable, with a preference for the 4Ts model as a linear design was required and task structure was relatively simple.
The benefit of using the 4Ts model would have been a scripted scenario for the presentation. It might also have encouraged me to find other resources than Powerpoint and to be more specific on output resources.
The Cadmos model would have been useful from the metadata for the tasks, forcing me to think about specific goals and prerequisites as well as about a variety of types. Of course this comes at the cost of additional effort and the question would be whether this would have resulted in significant better outcomes.