Cloud created by:
1 April 2014
I am focussing on 4Ts and 4SPPIces
‘Readability’ (i.e. the ease with which you understood the content)
-Certainly I found the 4SPPIces model readable since I liked the quadrant layout, and I could understand the rationale of dividing the learning into these four factors (pedagogy; participants; space; history). I thought it was interesting to factor in 'space' and to consider the physical (or virtual?) learning environment, rather than merely the tasks undertaken.
On the other hand, I didn't find the 4Ts model quite so readable, but that may be only due to the fact that I am looking at these screen shots. Perhaps a printed sheet of the 4Ts model would have been better, since I couldn't easily read what was written in the bubbles.
In 4Ts, it does make sense to me to divide the learning into tasks; teams; technology and time (or the 4 'swim lanes' as the website has it) though part of me wonders if they weren't conveniently chosen because they start with a 't'? That being said, factoring in time is especially important in a more formal/conventional learning environment (such as a classroom), so I can see the rationale for that.
I found 4SPPIces much better for providing me with a snapshot of a learning event; I think I could recreate this particular learning scenario using this outline - perhaps harder with 4Ts.
Utility (i.e. their usefulness in communicating important aspects of the design).
Certainly 4Ts is useful for factoring in time; 4SPPIces is very useful for factoring in history. I do think learning context and backstory is useful!