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

Serge's review of e-Design & DPD representations

Cloud created by:

Serge Stalpers
5 April 2016

  • Readabililty: I found the e-Design an easier representation to understand the activity: the steps are clearly set out, whereas in DPD it is fragmented (but perhaps the example was not fully worked-out).
  • Expressiveness: e-Design shows better the interaction principles involved (tutor or student managed, open or closed activity). At the same time this limits the representation to the (constructivist) theoretical perspective underpinning these principles. DPD makes more explicit why activities have been chosen, and the choice of design principles include a very broad range of rationales and theoretical perspectives.
  • Utility: For communicating important aspects of the design, I think each clearly has its own merits: e-Design more effectively represents the activities so that other teachers can apply it. DPD falls short in this (at least in this given case study), but because it makes the rationales clear, I think it is more helpful to understand what learning it might enable and how the design might be adopted to a new context.

I think they can be effective design tools, especially when used together: I would use e-Design to design a full course when (and only when) I aim to guide students into self-organized learners: ideal for higher education courses where collaborative learning is desired. And I like the time-bound activity structure. I would use DPD (1) to think about the why (2) to get ideas in the database how others have implemented the same goals.

  • Readabililty: I found the e-Design an easier representation to understand the activity: the steps are clearly set out, whereas in DPD it is fragmented (but perhaps the example was not fully worked-out).
  • Expressiveness: e-Design shows better the interaction principles involved (tutor or student managed, open or closed activity). At the same time this limits the representation to the (constructivist) theoretical perspective underpinning these principles. DPD makes more explicit why activities have been chosen, and the choice of design principles include a very broad range of rationales and theoretical perspectives.
  • Utility: For communicating important aspects of the design, I think each clearly has its own merits: e-Design more effectively represents the activities so that other teachers can apply it. DPD falls short in this (at least in this given case study), but because it makes the rationales clear, I think it is more helpful to understand what learning it might enable and how the design might be adopted to a new context.

I think they can be effective design tools, especially when used together: I would use e-Design to design a full course when (and only when) I aim to guide students into self-organized learners: ideal for higher education courses where collaborative learning is desired. And I like the time-bound activity structure. I would use DPD (1) to think about the why (2) to get ideas in the database how others have implemented the same goals.

Extra content

Embedded Content

Contribute

Contribute to the discussion

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