La extensión de la responsabilidad civil ante la lesión de los derechos de la

The overarching question was: What would a community based portfolio based on networked learning principles look like if developed in co-operation with the learners? The three research questions discuss the nature of the artifacts produced; how they are used by the rest of the group; and the nature of the tutor role and the community.

Research question 1: What assessment artifacts emerge from co-operating participants in a learning community?

Analysis of the artifacts and interview responses suggest that artifact representations with image, reflective text and folksonomy tags has worked in both cycles, with participants finding the mechanics of reification straightforward. Where little initial guidance or structure is provided, as in cycle one, artifacts tend to be created in response to a perception that tutor set activities have to be completed, limiting their range. They are also likely to only show correct work, emphasising preconceptions in the nature of assessment practices.

Categorising artifacts suggest they fall into these types:

• Artifacts representing a solution to a completed activity, following a tutor set exercise.

• Artifacts demonstrating a technique thought useful to the group as a whole.

• Artifacts asking for help or guidance. • Curation style artifacts.

Network analysis and participant feedback suggest that an induction containing a stepped introduction and examples to demonstrate the advantages of peer feedback will increase initial participation. This needs to be combined with activities that broaden the type of artifacts that can be demonstrated, to ensure that participants integrate folio-thinking into their working practices. This is also

required to promote the value in the idea that mistakes, broken code and curation style artifacts can be shared with a broader community. Differing subject areas can produce different flows of artifact creation, depending on the nature of the exercises and activities that are used during the learning process. Shorter, closed style activities with distinct answers encourage one artifact per exercise; longer projects create opportunities for many artifacts, showing work in progress. Curation artifacts can provide a view of engagement and use of external resources, or, as in cycle one, the lack of it. Discussion threads are more likely to form around curation artifacts and where participants are seeking assistance from the community.

With a degree of initial guidance, participants engage with tagging artifacts, resulting in an emergent shared vocabulary with names and phrases that closely align with a movement through various subject areas. The analytics show that folksonomy tags are regarded as a valuable way to search and sort artifacts and participants deemed it useful when asked about it in interviews.

Participants who have irregular patterns of work are more likely to have less innovative artifacts in the types they produce, and typically produce solutions to examples and exercises in a mechanical fashion. The reflective statement used in these artifacts are likely to be shorter and less detailed, suggesting a “catch-up” process and lack of engagement with the idea of community support.

Research question 2: How are artifacts, shared, used and reused by a community?

Students are willing to share artifacts in a collaborative fashion and to provide feedback and comment on others’ work, with an understanding of quid pro quo. In cycle one where little guidance was provided on the nature of artifacts to be produced, many of the participants used others’ artifacts as a suggestion as to the work that they should be producing reinforcing the notion that tutor sets work that has to be completed.

The analytics and patterns of activity show that generally, others’ work was viewed more often than a participant’s own work, providing solutions to common problems, opportunities for discussion and a suggestion of the level of work to be produced. Most suggest that the visibility of artifacts can be motivating, but it may produce an obligation to work, which is less positively viewed.

The way that knowledge can cascade through a community can be traced through viewing patterns and successive artifacts. Tag clouds, recommended artifacts and recent work displayed on the dashboard or gateway to the portfolio successfully promote sharing and reuse, increasing the number of connections between learners and the learning resources.

More popular artifacts are associated with participants who post early and regularly; these participants tend to occupy a central position in the community and have higher levels of activity. Those in the middle activity band tend to search and reflect much more than those on the edge or those that are more centrally placed. Participants who post first and regularly can find it difficult to use the community meaningfully, as there won’t be others’ work to review and collaborate on. There is a relationship between artifact creation and activity, with those sitting on the edge of the community typically producing fewer artifacts. If combined with irregular reification, the community may fail to provide help or guidance so the tutor may have to intervene.

Research question 3: What is the role of the tutor and the form of the community?

The lecturer has a multiplicity of roles, acting as learning designer; tutor facilitating online behaviour; and teacher providing direct instruction online. As demonstrated in cycle two, activities and exercises in the learning material form the basis for many of the artifacts. The tutor in the learning designer role has to carefully construct these so as to allow a progression from small closed activities towards more open activities that allow for greater differentiation and peer sharing. A more tightly specified induction suggesting more regular activity has here resulted in more of the participants creating artifacts around the same subjects at the same time, which is important as out of flow activity may result in less support from the community.

Using networked learning as an underlying philosophy requires the tutor to ensure there are opportunities for connections to form, which can be achieved by directing participants to others’ artifacts, rather than by direct instruction. The construction and nature of curation style artifacts can be demonstrated by the tutor, but encouraging the community to post and respond to requests for help may require extra tutor vigilance as participants with regular outlier placement may have difficulty getting responses to their questions or activities. Outliers

with lower level of participation can easily be identified in this system as activity is visible, but there is the possibility that participants are working ‘off line’ if they have not integrated artifact construction into their working practices.

Both cycles show that participant’s who create artifacts that lack reflective statements or meaningful tags can be nudged into attaching appropriate meta information, which is also helped when it develops as a custom and practice by the other participants in the community.

Analytics can provide valuable information about both community growth and individual activity, but this has to used carefully as a perception of surveillance demotivated a participant in cycle one, resulting in a change in behaviour. The evidence presented here suggests that a carefully constructed induction and visible advantages in the use of the data in a recommendation system can allay these worries.

There is a positive relationship between artifact production and overall activity, with those producing work regularly having higher visibility, more central placement in the community and a suggestion of expertise in the field. Creating artifacts early and regularly is a determining factor in the group’s perception of proficiency. If a student is regularly the first to post, there can be a fall off in that person’s perception of the usefulness of participation as there are few artifacts available on the same material. Here it can fall to the tutor to maintain levels of engagement by direct instruction, setting extra work; or by manually creating connections by asking participants to check, or help out on someone else’s work. The original intention was for activity and implementation inside the portfolio learning community to be fully peer based, with the interactions and interface for the tutor to be the same as that of the student participants. In practice the facilitation role required both actions and reporting tools to ensure the initial growth and monitoring of the community.