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

SLowe's design representation review

Cloud created by:

Sue Lowe
7 April 2016

4SPPIces model

Readability

The grouping of information into four areas and representing this in a diagram is helpful. However, some of the information presumably is behind the diagram (such as individual vs. collaborative work in relation to PM) as the space in the diagram is quite limited.

Expressiveness

(I’m taking this to mean what it is expressing/
representing.)

 

It provides an overview of (what I call) steps within the activity, whether individual work or collaborative (apparently, according to the description but I can’t actually see this in the diagram), and timings; who is involved in any interaction (though not in relation to each of the steps); where the learning takes place and technological requirements; relationships between the above. I like the capturing of relationships.

Utility

The description presents the model as a means of collaborative designing between the SMEs and the learning technologists. I guess this could be true. However, the diagram could also be used as a summary of the learning design – a representation to be used in developing and producing the learning event.

Adequacy for my design

It could have worked for both planning my training session and recording the design for future use/sharing. However, it’s not obvious where I would capture the learning outcomes; nor where I would capture the stakeholder feedback on the initial design and subsequent alterations to the design – to be honest, I’d’ve expected this to be what ‘History’ is but it doesn’t seem to be. I tend to find it useful to be able to capture the development of a design over time.

Benefits for my design

It captures some of the key information at a glance. It’s useful to make you think about the room and the set-up required, what the participants are going to o and how long each step will take, who’s involved and what the dependencies or relationships are in order for the learning to be successful.

For something ‘simple’ like a two-hour face-to-face training session, it works. I guess for a 30-week blended learning HE course, you’d need to have many multiple entries. I’d suggest the benefit of this is to focus on (what I call) a key activity and to be able to break that down into steps (what they call activities). Within a longer more complex course, his could be used just for those key activities which feed into assessment.

CADMOS

Readability

The conceptual model shows who (student vs. teacher) is doing what and which resource is required. This is useful at a glance. The flow model shows who (student – individually or in a group vs. teacher) is doing what and for how long. I prefer the swimlane representation and would have thought the resources could be included in that diagram, doing away with the need for the conceptual model. While the conceptual model provides a lot of useful information, the spider web-like lines make the diagram quite busy and less easy to read. The lack of numbering of the (what I call) steps within the activity makes it less easy to read at a glance.

Expressiveness

This enables more detail to be provided in two models. I like the fact that what the various people do is broken down into more detail, and I like the fact that student activity is represented as individual or group work. I like the fact that learning outcomes are captured, which is an improvement on 4SPPIces model (although only one per activity can be captured). I like the fact that related resources are captured.

Utility

The current version apparently only has limited activity types and they were selected for online learning... so most useful for online course design. The model could potentially be used as a means of reference post design for those involved in producing the course (in terms of explaining why it has been designed in the way it has), as well as for designing the course, though its use as a reference tool may be less obvious than the 4SPPIces model. There's no suggestion of collaborative design which is a selling point for the 4SPPIces model.

Adequacy for my design

My training session was face-to-face, so may have struggled to make use of pre-determined aspects such as the activity types. It is probably more beneficial for larger/longer courses given the two models enabling a lot of detail to be captured. The flow model with resources integrated into it would probably have sufficed for my two-hour training course.

Benefits for my design

I could have used it to clarify the individual and group work that the participants were involved in, as well as what the trainer was doing. I also like the fact that I’d be encouraged to consider the learning outcomes and the resources required.

 

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.