Figure 1
Elements related to e-moderating from Gilly Salmon’s five-stage-model (adapted from Salmon, 2016).
Figure 2
From Ryan and Ryan’s TARL (Teaching and Assessing Reflective Learning) model (Ryan & Ryan, 2013). The shaded areas highlight an assumed trend, whereby the students will be able to engage in higher levels of reflection in relation to their professional practice.
Table 1
Elements from the 4Rs Model of Reflective Thinking (adapted from Taylor & Ryan, 2015: 120). Note that Bain et al.’s (2002) stages of reporting and responding are merged into one stage in the model.
| Level | Stage | Questions to get you started |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reporting (and responding) | Report what happened or what the issue or incident involved. Why is it relevant? Respond to the incident or issue by making observations, expressing your opinion, or asking questions. |
| 2 | Relating | Relate or make a connection between the incident or issue and your own skills, professional experience, or discipline knowledge. Have I seen this before? Were the conditions the same or different? Do I have the skills and knowledge to deal with this? |
| 3 | Reasoning | Highlight in detail significant factors underlying the incident or issue. Explain and show why they are important to an understanding of the incident or issue. Refer to relevant theory and literature to support your reasoning. Consider different perspectives. How would a knowledgeable person perceive/handle this? What are the ethics involved? |
| 4 | Reconstructing | Reframe or reconstruct future practice or professional understanding. How would I deal with this next time? What might work and why? Are there different options? What might happen if…? Are my ideas supported by theory? Can I make changes to benefit others? |
Table 2
10 parameters for describing design patterns.
| Assignment: Empirical analysis using Pepito Pearls (sub-assignment) | |
|---|---|
| Type of collaboration | The assignment did not involve collaboration |
| Use of a common artefact | Pepito Pearls (available everywhere in DK) |
| Sharing/reusing | Reusable as is, but difficult to redesign |
| The nature of interaction | The participants were to buy Pepito Pearls, taste them and measure them |
| Scaffolding elements | Assignment instruction on video and in text |
| The professor’s presence | The professor was occasionally present in the online learning environment |
| Progression | The assignment took place at the beginning of the course and had a low level of complexity |
| Learning resources | Video and academic texts on empirical analysis |
| The technological platform | The learning platform used for the course and an app for timing |
| Time frame | Approximately 1 hour |
Figure 3
The Three Spaces Model for Online CPD combining spaces for interaction with course progression over time (the horizontal axis) and levels of complexity (the vertical axis).
Figure 4
The assignments plotted into the Three Spaces Model for Online CPD, according to their level of complexity, course progression over time and the different spaces involved in the online CPD course (from the left: the private space, the course space and the professional work space).
Figure 5
Three interrelated sub-assignments plotted into the Three Spaces Model for Online CPD. Together they cover the three different spaces, spreading from the left to the right according to the level of complexity and from the bottom to the top in relation to course progression over time.