Mapping the Structure of Phoebe's Content
This structure is based around the components of a learning session as identified in a number of JISC documents, as well as a number of lesson plans developed for the Learning Design Tools project (see SourceDocuments). In this iteration of the project, the components map to the elements that have been identified in a (representative?) number of real-life plans as well as templates: i.e. they deliberately do not map to the components of an IMS LD learning design (although there is obviously some overlap). This is in keeping with our design rationale, which is to produce a tool which practitioners will find useful in their current practice, before we start migrating them to Learning Design "proper".
An individual component doesn't necessarily correspond to an entity of data that the user has to enter; rather, a number of them could be clustered together as an extended prompt -- e.g. the list of learner characteristics that need to be taken into consideration. Also, if a user doesn't enter any information for a specific component, then that component should not appear in the final output (whether printed and/or digital).
Navigation through the Content
The following concept map represents an attempt at tracing users' possible routes through the main components of Phoebe. It has been derived by integrating the mapping tables created by Helen Beetham for JISC and making connections both as per the instructions in the tables themselves and through inference. It assumes four basic entry points (shown in bold): Learning outcomes, learner characteristics, teacher's chosen/preferred role and tools/technologies. These are interrelated in that, e.g., learning outcomes can be influenced by the learners' characteristics. 'Pedagogic approaches' are not considered key entry points at present, since some PIs have indicated that approaches/theories do not feature prominently in their planning.
Note: The learning activities themselves are now considered an entry point into Phoebe, on the assumption(!?!) that practitioners are also likely to ask questions like: 'How can technology enhance a role-play?'
Unresolved issues on this map:
- Impact of contingency planning: can affect sequences + individual activities
- Non-e tools and resources
ALSO We do not assume that the path taken in planning is necessarily the same as the route through the content!
- Can we make the planner usable for planning learning sessions at multiple levels -- e.g. a whole course, in which case the "activities" would be units within the course (so not all "fields" would be required). Users would then create separate plans for each unit -- could give the plan name (URL?) in the "activity" data. LM 1/8: Not for initial prototype.
- Form(s) of representation for this info, other than as hierarchical list similar to the one above, but expandable/contractible. LM 1/8: Now experimenting with tagging.
- There is a one-to-many relationship between global info and activity info, as each session may include more than one activity. However, do we want to consider a possible one-to-many relationship between an activity and global info -- i.e. where the same activity can crop up in different learning sessions? (Probably not, unless we were to store the info in a database, which isn't currently envisaged.) LM 1/8: No.
- How to represent branching where learners may do different activities depending on choice or differentiation? LM 1/8: Not for initial prototype.
- Granularity of a) the whole thing and b) individual activities; e.g. are discussion and reporting back a single activity or 2 separate ones (e.g. for timing?) LM 1/8: This is up to the person creating the plan to decide.