Team

1. Roles and role allocation
   (possibly Team leader, Project Manager, Media Manager, Researcher/Research Manager)

All agreed the following:

• Anna will take on the role of Team Leader

• Paul will be the Researcher/Research Manager

• Potenza will be the Project Manager

• Ken will be the Media Manager

2. Modes of communication and frequency of meetings
   (Whatsapp, forum, website, MS teams, Google Drive & docs) - all agreed.
   (notes at meetings - record meetings and who takes notes) - Potenza will take notes for the meetings.

WhatsApp communication for informal short communications.

Forum posts for course requirements.

Website for assignment requirements.

MS Teams for face to face formal discussions and consolidation.

Google Drive & Docs for resource sharing.

At the moment, frequency of meetings - weekly.

3. Objectives and context for our project (see https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1729454 and https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1729454&section=8)

Possible context: A healthcare setting e.g. a hospital creating a digital storytelling resource to educate both clinical staff and non-clinical staff about ethically treating prisoners coming into the hospital to receive treatment e.g. for long term conditions like dialysis or diabetes.

Key discussion points:

• Type of prisoner? - Low security risk, all prisoners generally, juvenile

• Ethical issues - code of conduct for healthcare professionals, Trust values, patient centred care

• Type of healthcare provision e.g. dialysis

• Learning resource: expand on equality and diversity training, resource to be posted on the VLE. It could be an OER that other healthcare Trusts could use. Scorm compliant package that can be exported and put into other VLEs.

Useful resources

https://digitalstoryh817.wordpress.com/

https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/249192/Prisons-and-Health,-3-Prison-specific-ethical-and-clinical-problems.pdf

Useful links explaining what Digital Storytelling is are as follows:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_storytelling#:~:text=%22Digital%20storytelling%22%20is%20a%20relatively,formats%2C%20and%20can%20be%20interactive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIix-yVzheM

Actions:

1. All to have a think about different healthcare workers? - Doctors, Nurses, Catering staff, receptionists, Healthcare Assistants (HCAs), cleaners, porters, other clinical and non-clinical staff. Any particular issues that need to be addressed and discussed e.g. accessibility issues. Each to choose a persona and then upload the completed persona card into Google Drive for others to read and make additions. Persona Template available here (Google version).

Action:

Anna: Reception staff and HCAs
Paul: Doctors and the Escorting Officer
Potenza: Nurses and cleaners/porters
Ken: Ambulance driver and Catering staff

2. Action: Ken to create Google Drive folder linked to the Blue Team website to store documents and other useful resources.

In attendance

Anna
Ken
Paul
Potenza (notes)

1. Discuss sharing the site with H817 students for comment

All agreed to post our website link in the TMA 03 forum either tonight or tomorrow morning.

Action: Ken to establish how to publish the site and make sure that everyone else outside of the Blue Team can view the website but can not edit.

2. Briefly review Personas

All eight personas as agreed last week have been completed but not all the areas of concern for each persona have been completed. Each persona was discussed in turn. Brief notes and actions below:

Persona 1: Associate Ambulance Practitioner, all agreed that by the age of 28 she would be a plausible professional. All happy with this persona.
Persona 2: Catering Staff, has an NVQ not that technical but does have a laptop at home. Not so sympathetic with prisoners.
Persona 3: Cleaner achieved success later in life by gaining GCSEs and functional skills, not so empathetic with others so could affect her feelings about the training. Action: Potenza to fill out a concerns template over the next few days.
Persona 4: Doctor, high flyer, focussed on her progression and not necessarily focussed on the patient. Action: Paul to fill out a concerns template over the next few days.
Persona 5: Escorting Officer: The resource will not be targeting him but he will be a factor in the forces affecting users. Action: Paul to fill out a concerns template over the next few days.
Persona 6: Healthcare Assistant: Young in his early 20s. Has some GCSEs and did some volunteering. Is digitally literate. Does not know much about prisoners and is very people centred. Has dyslexia. Plausible character.
Persona 7: Nurse: highly driven to become a Advanced Neonatal Nurse Practitioner. Digitally savvy so would seem to be the perfect persona. Is on the Equality and Diversity Panel but may not be as empathetic and receptive to prisoners. Action: Potenza to fill out a concerns template over the next few days.
Persona 8: Receptionist: attends church and went to secretarial college. A brother has been a Prison Officer so her prejudices and/or thoughts/views will be influenced by her brother.

All agreed that we have a good mix of personas, great people for the training both receptive and more troublesome characters who will be negative forces.

3. Map the forces

   1. Activity 6: List the factors and concerns (before the meeting, discuss in the meeting) - Action: Paul and Potenza to complete their personal factors and concerns.

   2. Activity 7: List the forces (during the meeting) - Action: All to add some notes to the Forces template. To be completed by early June so that the collective visual diagram can be collated during the meeting.

4. Agreeing on the challenge (Activity 9) - start the discussion (after meeting continue asynchronously): Not discussed but will be discussed at meeting three.

At the end of the meeting Ken kindly posted the website link to the TMA 03 forum.

Action: All to feedback on at least one other group's website.
Action: Anna to ask Alan whether he would like to join our WhatsApp group to review the communications that we have made.

1. Review the forces list and Map the forces

Went through the individual forces that were not discussed in meeting two. Brief comments below:

Nurse: Sits on the Equality and Diversity Panel but only focuses on racial injustice. Shared PC space so not the best place for CPD.

Escorting Officer: Hardened view towards prisoners and not into person centred care.

Doctor: They may not be as empathetic towards prisoners - may be some unconscious or conscious bias, time wasted with additional paperwork.

Cleaner: Shared computer space so uses the library PCs to access digital literacy courses, very rule centred.

Action: Potenza to put together a quick summary for the TGF Blue Group thread to explain the discussions and conclusions of the personas.

Looked at and discussed the 'A System of Forces' document kindly put together by Ken.

• Two number 7s are required following Paul's comments - 7b - Potential negative force from some here, if it is mandatory they may see it more as a distraction from their social/family/work life and not be as engaged with it, this could cause disruption in class or group work. Might perceive it will be DULL! All agreed with this. Done as part of the meeting.

Looked at the Forces Map and added in 7b.

2. Discuss and agree the challenge

Discussed as part of the forum, permalink below: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3678587#p25968937

Action: Paul and Potenza to add comments to the thread by the 6th June 2021.

Design challenge to be formalised and added to the formal Design Challenge document.

3. Activity 10 (case studies and theoretical frameworks)

Action: Potenza to complete her case study and theoretical framework (activity 10).

Action: All to comment on our selected case studies and theoretical frameworks and comment on other groups studies and frameworks.

Action: Everyone to look at every other groups websites and comment.

Action: Anna to ask whether our WhatsApp conversations need to be posted into the forum.

Action: All to create a rough storyboard by Sunday evening - Activity 13.

1. Taking stock of what we have done and what we might have skipped (update the progress chart)

Only the outstanding actions were fully discussed and noted below:

Action 1: Everyone to comment on each other's vision in the forum. Update: All checked and everyone commented on everybody's post apart from Potenza's. Action: Everyone to comment on her post here (Activity 2).

Action 5: Populate the front page is something we can do as part of updating the website towards the end of the project.

Action 7: All to look at the changes that Anna has made in light of comments for improvement.

Action 8: Potenza's Personas forum post for us to comment on https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3684891#p26016290

Action 9: All to comment on other group's personas.

Action 10: Personal reflection of our personas.

Action 12: All to comment on Potenza's thread about the factors and concerns: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1729454&section=8.2.1), Activity 6 link: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3684904#p26016366, All to comment on other group's factors and concerns.

Action 15: Optional Activity Reflection: All to have a look at activity 8 here: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3642934 and write up some reflective notes for our personal logs.

Action 16 & 17: Anna to read through all the comments and then distil the responses and make changes to the original post and ask for agreement from everyone else. https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3678587

Action 18: All to comment on other team's design challenge documents.

Action 19: Review a case study or a Theoretical Framework. The instructions are to do one or the other.

There are four case studies: two from Paul and one from Ken and one from Potenza. Action: Anna to complete an additional case study. Action: All to feedback on Paul's case studies here (activity 10): https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3682158#p26019867 and

There are two theoretical frameworks: one from Anna and one from Ken. Action: Potenza to complete cognitivism

Action 20: Elicit design patterns & Principles: We have done some design patterns and principles. Action: Potenza, Paul and Anna to complete their patterns and principles

Action 21: (Activity 12): https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3646342 All to review each other's principles and patterns via the centralised forum. https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3682158

Action 22: (Activity 13): https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3646340 . Action: Potenza to start and complete her storyboard

2. Starting Storyboarding

Discussed at the beginning of the meeting. Paul, Ken and Anna have created their storyboards. Action: Potenza to complete hers in time for the next meeting on the 9th June.

Dates for the next meetings agreed - 9th June at 7.30 - 8.15pm and 11th June from 8.30pm - 9.30pm.

1. Present: Ken, Anna, Potenza. Apologies from Paul.

2. Quick meeting taking stock of what still needs to be done

Anna has done some cosmetic updates to the site.

Case studies - Paul needs to choose which one to use for the Design Pattern activity.

All agreed to carry on with actions as per the meeting on the 4th June.

Action: Paul to post his Design Principle document in the centralised forum so that we can all comment.

1. Present: Ken, Paul, Anna. Apologies from Potenza

2. Continue storyboarding (part 3 of activity 13) - we still need Potenza's storyboard and all need to comment in the forum on each other's storyboards. We cannot do the combined storyboard until we have all 4 storyboards to discuss. We did review the 3 existing storyboards and agreed we need to agree the design challenge before we can go further with storyboarding.

3. Progress:
   Action 9 - Ken will try to convert the Word doc Personas to Google docs to see if they layout on the site better.
   Action 17 - all to comment on the updated design challenge wording https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/forumng/discuss.php?d=3678587
   Action 18 - see if we can find any other team design challenge documents/forum threads to comment on
   Action 19 - has been the most progress in the past few days. Paul still needs to choose which case study to focus on for his design pattern
   Anna is going to look at all the forum comments from others about our site and add the feedback into the progress plan column for us to address.

4. Agree our own cut off date for work on the website: possibly 24 June (official date is 28 June). Marking criteria for the website: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1729461

5. Cosmetic updates to the site - Ken is exploring how to present our personas so we don't have the scrollbar. He tried embedding them as images, but there are accessibility issues, so he will try to cut & paste the existing document layout direct into the pages. Ken has started adding some images to the Case study page.

1. Present: Ken, Paul, Anna and Potenza

2. Continue Storyboarding (part 3 of activity 13) - group storyboard

Anna has created a placeholder for the joint storyboard.

Paul edited and is sharing the Google Docs Template to create a shared storyboard.

All agreed to retain our individual storyboards on the site because it shows the different thoughts of the group. Each person's storyboard links into our individual Design Patterns and Design Principles and research.

Some of the discussions and notes are shown below.

We had initial discussions about what the objectives should be and agreed the following:

• Identify 9 protected characteristics from the Equality Act and explore potential changes to service policy

• Define Person Centred Care and reflect on empathy in your role

• Identify your own and others healthcare experiences and reflect on your attitudes and self-belief

Assessments

• Pre-assessment questionnaire on the Equality Act 2010 and Person Centred Care key attributes

• Post-assessment questionnaire on the Equality Act 2010 and Person Centred Care key attributes

• Self-assessment reflective piece on learning experience from the course

• End of course quiz - to ensure you get your Digital Badge and certificate

Topics

• Equality Act 2010

• Person centred care

• Prisoners and healthcare: facts and figures

• Prisoners stories

• Developing equitable care for prisoners: our solutions

Activities (these will need to be numbered on the joint storyboard)

• Complete pre-assessment questionnaire

• Complete post-assessment questionnaire

• Watch video on equality and person centred care

• Watch video on prisoners and healthcare facts and figures

• Contribute to forum discussion on the various videos throughout the course

• Record reflections on personal attitudes, beliefs and future goals

• Complete post-assessment questionnaire

• Complete end of course quiz

Resources

• Internet connected device

• Digital literacy (other CPD offered if needed)

• Set up pre and post questionnaires

• Set up end of course

• Set up forums for each activity

Action: All to review the joint storyboard and comment to each other about it via a joint thread in our joint discussion forum. All to comment by Wednesday 16th June ready to post the joint storyboard.

Action: All to comment on other groups joint storyboard.

3. Discuss Design prototyping (activity 14). Three other teams have got some prototypes on their sites https://sites.google.com/view/oadla-bullying-resources/prototype and https://sites.google.com/view/digital-diaries/prototype and https://sites.google.com/view/blueteam-localhistory/prototype-app

Ken has set up a InVisionApp group for us to create our prototype.

Activity 14 details: https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1729458&section=4.1

Team leader

• You can use one of the templates below to create a feature table as a shared document:

Prototype feature table (Google template) or Prototype feature table (Word template)

• Embed the feature table in a ‘Feature table’ sub-page of the prototype section of your project website.

• Assign the scenes (frames) in the storyboard to team members.

• Team members

• For each scene (frame) assigned to you, extract about 3–5 distinct features. These should be either elements of the learner activity or resources required to support these. See the example below.

• Scan the features your teammates have added to the shared document. If any of them is similar to one of the features you extracted – update it with any extra information you have.

• In the shared document list the features you found, noting the scene they are derived from, the specification of the feature, and any notes you find useful to add. See the example below.

The example below shows the first frame in the storyboard for Weeks 18 and 19, which is ‘extract features from storyboard’, the activity you are now engaged in. It could translate into the following feature table.

3. • Ken: Digital literacy and forums

   • Anna: Assessments and quizzes

   • Paul: Equality and person centred care

   • Potenza: Prisoner stories and prisoner healthcare stories: facts and figures

Action: All to complete activity 14 before the next meeting on the 18th June.

Activity 15: Selecting features https://learn2.open.ac.uk/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=1729458&section=4.2

Action: All to complete activity 15 before the next meeting on the 18th June.

4. Preparation for Heuristic evaluation (weeks 18-19 activities)

Action: All to prepare the heuristic evaluation during the week in preparation for the next meeting.

5. Tidying up the website

Ken changed his images for the personas following comments from another group. The comment from Stefania (10 June) was as follows: the table format of the personas (not keen on it) and would like to see faces of the personas (some of our personas have icon faces).

Action: All to check where they sourced their images for personas and add to the website.

6. Planner table

Action 17: Potenza to feedback on the finalised design challenge post by Anna

Action 19: Review a case study or a Theoretical Framework, now green all completed

Action 20: Elicit design patterns & Principles, now green all completed.

1. Present: Ken, Paul, Anna and Potenza

2. Review prototype table and draft prototype

• All looked at the prototype, really great functionalities have been added. Great questions by Anna to establishment how much staff interacting with patients and level of enjoyment of interacting with patients, communication skills and more. Excellent focused inclusion of the Equality Acts focused on the nine characteristics.

• Brilliant work by Ken working on the InvisionApp software

• Action: Potenza to send her draft prototype of the videos to Ken by the 19th June 2021

Prototype Table discussions

Anna shared the screen of the combined table to discuss the ratings that we have all assigned to our individual activities. A short summary is below:

• Pre-activities changed and lowered the priority from 2 to 1. Agreed the level of difficulty. Yes included in the prototype

• Activity 1 (pre-assessment questionnaire) increased the difficulty from 2 to 3 to recognise the difficulty of creating sensible questions. The priority remained the same.

• Activity 2 lowered the priority from 2 to 1. Not included in the prototype.

• Activity 3 Watch video on Equality and Person-centred care

• Activity 3 create the Equality Act video increased the priority to 4 key to our Digital Storytelling video

• Activity 3 Edit the video for accessibility - add the transcript version of the video to the prototype. Update: During the meeting Ken has added a transcript link. Excellent work.

• Activity 3 Forum for discussions - agreed the ratings, no changes

• Activity 4 Watch video on prisoners & healthcare facts and figures - changed the priority from 4 to a 5

• Activity 4 Watch video on prisoners & healthcare facts and figures - include the accessibility features different language transcripts

• Activity 5 Watch video on prisoners stories - increased the difficulty from 3 to 4 for the must have visual and audio cues section

• Forums only one forum is being included to demonstrate how these will work

• Activity 7 complete the end of course quiz increased the priority from 3 to 4 - this is the only way to measure the impact of the course.

3. Heuristic evaluation (weeks 18-19 activities)

The heuristic evaluation document is in the shared Google Drive. Both Anna and Paul have started to type into it.

Anna has started looking at the appendices related to heuristics. We need to select the heuristics that are most appropriate for our story.

Action: All to add in our suggestions under the three main headings in the appendices in the Heuristic - Evaluation document. Move them to the headings created by Anna by the 20th June 2021. Use the annotation notes to the right of the document to show the discussions.

Team members - OU instructions

• • • Contribute 1–3 heuristics to the ‘Heuristic evaluation protocol’ document your team leader has shared with you. You can adapt heuristics from the examples in the document appendix or write your own. Each heuristic should identify a desirable quality of your innovation, such as the alignment of user actions with learning aims or the usability of the interface. See the nQuire moonrock protocol below for an example. You should also define clear criteria for assessing the level to which this quality is achieved.

    • Review the heuristics proposed by your team mates. Note redundancies and contradictions between heuristics. Propose refinements where you deem these necessary.

    • Respond to the feedback from your team mates, if needed.

    • Discuss the heuristic evaluation protocol in your team forum: consider how many heuristics you should have, how detailed they should be, whether you should include a score sheet, etc.

4. Review of the Project Tracker

Reviewed and updated the progress. All activities are either in progress or completed.

Action: All to check the Project Tracker and update comments in the right column.

Action: Anna will be updating the format of the Project Tracker (done 19.6.2021).

5. Review our website - what still needs to be done to finalise it.

All agreed we have done well as a small group and with other pressures.

Anna shared the screen and Paul read out the TMA marking list, brief notes below:

Background - agreed that we have articulated the description of the context and challenge

Preliminary research - 4 case studies, 3 theoretical frameworks, Two additional case studies in the other research area and some background information.

Design - Four storyboards and a combined storyboard which is very detailed.

Prototype - in progress using the InVision app, brilliant work by Ken

Prototype missing or poor quality

Outline prototype of the activity, resource or tool you are designing, in any appropriate form

Complete prototype of the activity, resource or tool you are designing, in any appropriate form

Evaluation - Heuristics and protocol are in progress.

Reflection - Possibility of writing a blog post (Activity 19) - to open up about lessons learned.

Action: If possible to create a personal blog post and then post it to the centralised forum by the 20th June 2021 with an aim to create a combined post.

Presentation - proper referencing of sources and good use of images.

Action: The following pages still need some images: the Design page, Factors and Concerns, Context and Challenge. Paul to have a look and add some images and attributions.

1. Present: Ken, Paul, Anna and Potenza

2. Prototype - final review

The prototype is on the site with an accompanying video. It is fantastic everyone is pleased with the finished project.

Discussed the possibility of the project being used in Potenza's Trust and she indicated that this may be possible. She mentioned that the Patient Experience Team have been sent on a Digital Storytelling course to tell patients' stories as digital stories.

Action: All to review our comments about the prototype in the combined forum and add any additional comments we want to add during the week.

3. Heuristic evaluation (weeks 18-19 activities)

All agreed that perhaps two per heading is ok.

Anna shared the screen showing our combined heuristic evaluation document and discussed each point. Key summary points are below:

Usability

• • Feedback: inform the user about what is going on using appropriate feedback in a timely manner (Beale & Sharples). We decided to exclude this as it overlapped with Each page has the required navigation buttons or hyperlinks (links), such as previous (back) next and home which was copied across

  • Error recovery: try and design the system to prevent errors occurring, and when they do provide clear messages and suggest appropriate solutions. (Beale & Sharples) this overlaps with Learner Control and freedom Instructions for evaluator: Can the user control the system easily? Can they exit the system at any time and can they use undo or redo type functions to correct mistakes (Ssemugabi and de Villiers, 2010). The latter was retained.

  • Combine the Consistent approach throughout: By providing a consistent design scheme (and or a familiar design scheme) throughout the learning system, our learners will not have to relearn how to do things or continually have to learn different ways of actioning the same things and Accessibility approach throughout: Approach taken to cater for those with various disabilities; such as hard of hearing, dyslexia, visual impairment, colour vision deficiency (colour blindness).

Website specific

Combine Language usage in terms of phrases, symbols, and concepts is similar to that of users in their day-to-day environment. (Ssemugabi & de Villiers) and Maximises match between the system and the real world - The software speaks the users' language rather than jargon. Information appears in a natural and logical order. (Albion) - very important for our project

Include the Uses aesthetic and minimalist design - The software provides an appealing overall design and does not display irrelevant or infrequently used information. (Albion) Rephrase: CPD uses aesthetic and appealing overall design which works well on a mobile device and does not display irrelevant information.

Would include The site has content and interactive features that attract, motivate and retain learners, and that promote creativity, e.g. the online activities are situated in real-world practice, and interest and engage the learners. (Ssemugabi & de Villiers, 2010) - for the heuristic for the course but not for the prototype.

The authors of the content are of reputable authority. Ssemugabi and de Villiers (2010) - no content as yet more relevant to the end product course

Recognition vs recall - more usable and useful in the main course but still useful so will be retained.

Educational

Learners are guided as they perform tasks. (Ssemugabi & de Villiers) and Activities scaffolded - The software provides support for learner activities to allow working within existing competence while encountering meaningful chunks of knowledge (Albion). We could edit these together: Learners are guided by scaffolded activities to provide support to work within existing competence while encountering meaningful new knowledge and perspectives (Cognitivism).... all agreed very important so must be included.

Quantitative feedback, e.g. grading of learners’ activities, is given, so that learners are aware of their level of performance. (Ssemugabi & de Villiers) Rephrase: Clear feedback and grading is given in assessment to support learner awareness of their performance: After some discussion decided to include.

Establishment of context - The photographs, documents and other materials related to the simulated schools create a sense of immersion in a simulated reality (Albion) does have a role but we preferred the wording for Relevance to professional practice - The problem scenarios and included tasks are realistic and relevant to the professional practice of teachers (Albion). Rephrase: The scenarios, digital stories and included tasks are realistic and relevant to the professional practice of healthcare.

Apart from controlling the interactions with the site, learners have some freedom to direct their learning, either individually or collaboratively, and to have a sense of ownership of it. Ssemugabi and de Villiers (2010) - more relevant for the end course rather than prototype

The finalised reworded choices were as follows:

Usability

1. Learner Control and freedom: Instructions for evaluator: Can the user control the system easily in terms of navigability and functionality? Can they exit the system at any time and can they use undo or redo type functions to correct mistakes (Ssemugabi and de Villiers, 2010).

2. Consistent and accessible approach throughout: Instructions for evaluator: Consistent design scheme approach taken that also caters for those with various disabilities; such as hard of hearing, dyslexia, visual impairment, colour vision deficiency (colour blindness).

Website specific

3. Language usage: Instructions for evaluator: Language usage in terms of phrases, symbols, and concepts is similar to that of users in their day-to-day environment, that maximises match between the system and the real world (Ssemugabi & de Villiers, 2010; Albion, 1999).

4. Recognition vs recall: Instructions for evaluator: This brings to light the importance of minimizing the learners memory load (learning content vs learning to navigate/use the system). We do this by ensuring website's components are more visible, memorable, and understandable.

Educational

5. Learners are guided as they perform tasks (Ssemugabi & de Villiers, 2010) and Activities scaffolded: Instructions for evaluator: Learners are guided by scaffolded activities to provide support to work within existing competence while encountering meaningful new knowledge and perspectives (Cognitivism).

6. Relevance to professional practice: Instructions for evaluator: The scenarios, digital stories and included tasks are realistic and relevant to the professional practice of healthcare. Learning outcomes match project aims (Albion, 1999).

7. Quantitative feedback: Instructions for evaluator: Clear feedback and grading is given in assessment to support learner awareness of their performance (Ssemugabi & de Villiers, 2010)

4. Combined reflective blog post

Paul, Anna and Ken have posted their blog posts. Action: Potenza to complete hers by the 21st June 2021.

Action: Anna will create a shared document post meeting and everyone to select the best parts to create a shared blog post. Anna will tidy up the wording post collation of the best parts.

Action: All agreed to stop working with the website by the 24th June 2021.

5. Project website - review

All looked at Anna's addition of the reflection page. Great idea and also it includes website enhancements in response to other group's feedback.

Paul has added some more images that he has created using Paint.

Action: Anna will add the attributions that are missing for some images then name the ones created by Paul and Ken. This will allow consistency across the site.

Anna has added some additional headings to each page to introduce sections.

Action: All to have a read and make any edits.