Different forms of representation for design

Types of representation
Learning activities can be represented in various ways; each
representation will articulate particular aspects of the activity. Learning
activities can be codified into a number of different forms of
representation, which each foreground different aspects of the learning
activity and which provide a means of illustrating the inherent design.
These can either be used for creation of learning activities (i.e. design)
or as a means of representing the delivery of a learning activity (i.e.
narrative). These forms of representation range from rich contextually
located examples of good practice (case studies, guidelines, etc.) to
more abstract forms of representation that distil out the essences of
good practice (models or patterns).

Figure 1: Representations and uses of learning activities

Figure 1 provides an illustration showing an learning activity at the
centre, with examples of a number of different ways in which this
learning activity can be described i.e. forms of representation. These
abstractions (or forms of representation) of the learning activity can
then be used as the basis for supporting the design process of creating
a new learning activity or as a means of constructing a narrative that
guides users through the process of using the learning activity. It is
important to know what the representation is for. Is it to e.g.:

enable educational researchers to analyse and develop educational

innovations;
enable teachers to plan lessons;
enable software designers to instantiate lesson designs in software;
help learners to understand their teaching and learning.
The type of representation would appear to be crucially dependent on
it purpose.
Layers of representation
Although it is evident that any number of forms of representation
might be possible this section differentiates between three different
levels of representations that are particularly important and provides
suggestions for examples of forms of representation that might be
used within each of these levels: an educational component (the
pedagogical intention and aspiration), a technological component
(what technologies will be used, how and their associated affordances)
and a process-based/operational component, which describes the
process or operational dimension provides the link between these.
Therefore we suggest it is useful to think in terms of the following
three levels (see also figure 2):
1. Educational view: The underlying pedagogical/inquiry model
(may want to sub-represent this in a number of ways)
a. Objectives/outcomes/competences
b. Pedagogical model
c. Assessment
d. Constraints
2. Process-based/Operational view: Both the educational and
technical (see below) perspectives require a representation of
process. Technically we might need to represent process:
On different levels of granularity
o curriculum style lesson plans
o minute by minute orchestration of group collaboration
On different levels of formality:
o Give appropriate prompts to learners while measuring
temperature
o IF t < 0 OR t > 40 THEN.ELSE
Existing languages available to specify a learning process have
different emphases:
a. Stage-based: The key stages involved in the learning activity
i.e. a descriptive overview or account of the key stages or
2

aspects involved. Control-flow style representations such as

LAMS. The focus is on modules and their sequencing.
b. Schema: Outlining the sequential set of tasks and associated
roles, resources, tools and outputs. Schematic representations of
role, outcome, activity, environment such as IMS LD. More finegrained than stage-based representations but dynamics can be
hard to express.
c. Rule-based: Blackboard style representation such as TSpace.
Good for coordination/prompting but can lose the high-level
view.
3. Technical view
a. The technical implementation blueprint
b. Rule-based and runtime of the data flow
In addition it may be necessary to provide some form of crossrepresentation mapping i.e. dialogue between the three in terms of
needs and constraints.

Figure 2: Three layers of representation of learning activities

Case study
As a means of illustrating the above the text that follows provides a
walk through of a learning activity that has been used in the
ESRC/EPSRC TEL project Personalised Inquiry (PI) (http://www.piproject.ac.uk/). It is important to note however, that this example is
3

general in nature and does not provide the level of detail or context
that a real example would, hence the descriptions in this section reflect
this general level rather than providing details to specific resources or
tools for example.
Educational view
The educational view can take a number of forms of representation.
This might consist of a pedagogical model describing the inquiry-based
approach being adopted, it might give an outline of the overarching
key educational goals or provide some form of narrative (such as a
case study or pedagogical pattern). The example illustrated here
shows the case study in two formats:
a) a description of the educational approach,
b) a pedagogical pattern.
Description of educational approach
The students are set an inquiry-based problem. They choose different
methods of inquiry to address tackle the problem and work individually
and then collectively to solve the problem. The learning outcomes are:
1. The students will be able to apply a set of Scientific principles
within a range of contexts
2. The students will gain experience of using a range of tools of
inquiry to address Scientific problems
3. The students will gain experience and competence in the use of
mobile devices across different context
4. The student will develop an understanding of the use of collective
resources in addressing specific inquiries.
Pedagogical pattern
Pedagogical pattern:
Collaborative inquiry across different context using different
technologies
Context:
A learning activity primarily designed to be used in a secondary
school context to help the children to develop inquiry-based
approaches to Scientific investigations
Problem:
Student have difficulties in relating abstract concepts and
formal representations to real life examples
Students need to rigorously examine and test their
understanding of evidence derived from observations.
Solution:
Use a real life, authentic problem to drive the scenario

Provide a number of different ways in which the students can

investigate the problem
Provide students with experience of working individually and
building collectively on the work of others
Situate Scientific investigation in a real life context
Provide flexible and contextual scaffolding to guide the
students
Provide multiple resources and tools to support flexible
investigation by the students
Example:
Teacher poses a open end questions and students choose different
inquiry methods to address it, results are pooled and discussed
Related pedagogical approaches:
Problem-based learning, collaborative inquiry, scientific investigation,
resource-based learning, collaborative learning

Process view
Three examples of process views are given: a simple steps/stages
example, a lesson plan and a schema.
Stages
1. The teacher poses an open question, of interest to students, to
prompt debate.
2. Students use their handheld devices linked to a classroom data
projector to generate initial responses, which are automatically
clustered and displayed along different dimensions.
3. The software selects teams of students whose answers differ along
the dimensions and sets them the challenge to move closer in
agreement through inquiry and debate.
4. Each team chooses one or more methods of inquiry, such as debate
with expert or run experiments outdoors.
5. Software running on their mobile devices provides tools and
curriculum materials to structure their investigations as they move
between locations, and to transmit the results to a team website;
6. The system guides the students at home and in school to share
data, analyse the evidence, and try to reach consensus;
7. Their results, and changes in response to the initial question, are
presented and compared in the classroom through a discussion
mediated by the teacher.

Lesson plan
Lesson plan template
Class: Year 7
Date:
Produced by:
Learning outcomes
1. The students will be able to apply a set of Scientific principles within a
range of contexts
2. The students will gain experience of using a range of tools of inquiry to
address Scientific problems
3. The students will gain experience and competence in the use of mobile
devices across different context
4. The student will develop an understanding of the use of collective
resources in addressing specific inquiries.
Lesson outline
Structure
Groupings
Activities
1. Teacher poses
1. Class-based
1.Class debate. Clarification
question
re: nature of the activity
2. Generation and
2. Individual,
2. Individual responses,
clustering of ideas
then class-based clustering, discussion
3. Team selection
3. Team-based
3. Initial discussion re:
challenge
4. Choice of method
4. Team-based
4. Consideration of the factors
of inquiry
associated with the methods
5. Use of tools and resources,
5. Investigation
5. Team-based
gathering of data
6. Sharing of data, discussion
6. Data sharing and
and attempt to reach
analysis
6. Team-based
consensus
7. Presentation of group
results, comparison and
7. Pooling of results
7. Class-based
discussion
Resources and tools Whiteboard, data projector, mobile devices,
teacher directed resources, student source
resources,
Differentiation
Methods offer different degrees of sophistication,
individuals can contribute in different ways and to
different degrees in the teams
Examples of follow
1. Adoption of a similar approach in a different
on activities
context
2. Swamping and comparison of methods across
teams
3. Carrying out a longitudinal investigation of a
similar nature
4. Aggregating findings with other sources
another school, or via a distributed data
collection centre

Schema
A partial representation of the Schema is illustrated in Figure 3. This
has been mapped using an Learning Design adapted version of
Compendium. A interactive version of this is available online
(http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/2824/kmap/1195028702/pi_wp
2_scenario.html). Note that notes can contain a number of levels of
additional detail, as well as links to other file types web sites,
diagrams, programes, resources etc.

Figure 3

Therefore the overall steps [1..7] of the learning activity can most
easily be expressed in a stage-based way. Many of the details of the
steps (e.g. question leads to student responses on data projector)
seem to be most easily expressed in a schema-based way. Some
details (e.g. guiding and prompting to share data and analyse) might
most easily be expressed in a rule-based way.
Technical view
The technical view includes:
Device functionality and recommendations: The schema
representation above refers to various hardware devices that will
be required to run an activity, such as a mobile device and data
projector. It can be expected that the detail will not require a
specific make or model of device but rather one of a class of
suitable devices. From a technical viewpoint there may be a
number of constraints (e.g. requires bluetooth, wifi, etc.). Also
from an educational viewpoint there may be a number of
requirements or recommendations (e.g. touchscreen as preferred
method of interaction).
Software functionality and recommendations: Similarly, it
can be expected that it may be possible to use different software
tools. These will often be web-based tools that are receiving data
from or sending data to other parts of the programme. For
example, a visualisation software tool may take as input data
readings from an early part of the programme. For this to work,
the technical layer will have to specify appropriate data formats
for interoperability. Further requirements may come from an
educational viewpoint, such as which visualisation tools are most
suitable to support a classroom discussion of the findings.
Specification of data structures and the creation, flow and
transformation of data during the running of an activity: At
a technical level the inquiry process for the individual, group and
class will have to be specified in terms of the required data
structures (for storing e.g. sensor measurements, audio files,
group allocation, notes, etc.) and dependencies between them
(e.g. storing a graph generated using the data collected
previously). To facilitate reuse and adaptation it will be important
that these data structures can accommodate different types of
activities rather than being hard-wired for specific examples. For
example, the teacher or student may decide that CO2 should be
measured instead of, of as well as temperature. This should be
specified directly at a teacher or learner interface level.

Coordination and management of the process: On a technical

level, there is a need to specify and run support for the
management and coordination of the activity for the individual,
group and class. This will be more than a pre-determined
flowchart for the activity and will require representation and use
of conditionals within the programme for e.g. orchestrating
collaborations and providing learner prompts.
Metadata description for classification and search and
retrieval: The programme can be expected to have associated
metadata for classification and search in e.g. RDF. This metadata
will draw on the formal specifications used for the data structures
and coordination plus the higher process and educational views.

Conclusion
It is important to note that research in this area is still highly
contested. There is as yet no clear understanding/agreement of how
best to a) represent learning activities, b) support and represent the
design process, or c) provide navigation support or scaffolding
narratives. A number of key questions and issues around the concepts
of design and narrative remain:
What are the most appropriate forms of representation to use?
How will we address the know issues which have arisen in other
research on learning objects, learning design and narrative, eg:
a) issues of granularity,
b) context vs. abstraction,
c) purpose (different views for different audiences teacher,
educational researcher, student, School IT support),
d) context (teacher deciding whether to use a learning design,
developer/teacher modifying or authoring a design, teacher
monitoring the running of a design, student understanding the
objective of the design),
e) uptake (justification for investment in time in understanding
or creating design and narratives) and
f) sustainability (repurposing and reuse of designs and
narratives, the creation of a user-generated community of
designs and narratives).
Acknowledgements
This briefing paper is an adaptation of a Working Paper that was produced by
Grinne Conole and Paul Mulholland as part of the PI project, which is funded by the
EPSRC/ESRC research councils. PI is a large, interdisciplinary project, the principal
investigators are Mike Sharples and Eileen Scanlon. Further details about the PI
project can be found on the project website http://www.pi-project.ac.uk/. Other key
members of the research team are Shaaron Ainsworth, Steve Benford, Trevor Collins,

Charles Crook, Mark Gaved, Chris Greenhalgh, Ann Jones, Karen Littleton, Claire
OMalley, Hazel Martin, Alison Twiner, and Michael White

10