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

Steven Herron's views

Cloud created by:

Steven Herron
9 April 2014

•In your review, compare the two representations you selected. Note their ‘readability’ (i.e. the ease with which you understood the content) their expressiveness their utility (i.e. their usefulness in communicating important aspects of the design).

4Ts model

This seemed really straightfoward and something akin to most lesson plans that I have completed across. I feel that this is hgardlky something new as for many years teachers have 'designed learning' where perhapos in place of the word technology they have used the word 'resources'. I would argue that there is perhaps not much dynamic in temrs of the collaboration available in the model shown. In my context this appraoch to language acquisition would be familiar to most teachers. I would argue that there is limited detail on the task outline and also the use of 'swimlanes' also suggests a linear path through the learning and thus, particulallry for online, blended or even interactive classroom learning, this is rather fixed. I have worked with flexible patterns of collaboration without any technology so it must be possible to do this with technology, especially if it has been created for this purpose.

E-Design template

This model is built on the premise of a hiaerarchy which seems like a logicval step of progression but for one key point. It neglects any previous experience that the leaern may have and also their competency levels of prior knowlegde that may mean they do not start at the bottom of the grid. It seems to also be very similar to the work of Gilly Salmon (not sure who is copying / inspiring who here!). The other thing that seems more rationale for this type of design is that it seems to fit more above the level of an individual activity or lesson and would perhaps be better served at the level of a week or even a module / course. In this sense there would be a longtitudinal prorgression as the learner becomes more familari and then moves to construct their own knowledge and move out of their ZPD (Vygotsky).

Consider these representations from the perspective of the learning design you documented in Activity 1b. 1.Are they adequate for expressing your design? 2.What would be the benefits of using these representations for your design? Please explain your views.

I can see some benefits of using either but perhaps niether would particulallry serve the needs as the context I provided was more complex and needed more flexibility than either could offer. I wonder whether in fact none of the particuallr templates would be suitbale for my current context and something bespoke that cuts across many of them to incorporate elements to match the needs of my modules woulod be more appropriate. I am actually at the stage where I am considering the learning design of the first module so this has given me food for thought. However, there are templates for language teaching that I would like to rip up and also open up as the deisgn of the online module is, for me, changing the way we can teach language aquisition.

Extra content

Embedded Content


Contribute to the discussion

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