The cycle

This section provides an overview of the activity over distinct phases, dividing the cycle into three. This provides the context for the specific data collected during the cycle, which is presented in the subsequent sections and analysed in chapter five.

Week one to week three

The induction session introduced the aims of the learning community, an overview of e-Portfolios, a demonstration of the platform along with a discussion on the nature of artifacts and how they are created and shared. Exercises, examples and other resources were shown as possible sources for artifacts. For the first three weeks of portfolio use, a combination of programming and database techniques were demonstrated in class, with accompanying examples showing how to set up a connection between a web and database server. Examples and exercises asked students to create their own databases, write

queries and to display data extracted from the connection in a web page. Subsequent classes covered building a larger web application, using database and programming techniques from the earlier sessions.

Each student’s first artifact was acknowledged with a comment to encourage further participation. Artifacts with missing reflective statements, tags or taxonomy placement were commented to reinforce the advantages in using these in the process. There are a number of factors that influence how long a facilitator should wait before

responding to an unanswered request for help. Answering too quickly can discourage others from participating (Garrison & Cleveland-Innes, 2005; Vonderwell, 2003) leaving questions unanswered for too long could reduce confidence in the ability of the community to supply answers, particularly when the visible participation level is lower. Due to low levels of initial participation I replied within 24-36 hours for the first two weeks (figure 4.10).

In the first two weeks, eight of the participants had explored the system, with only four creating artifacts. Despite general encouragement in class, participation levels in the portfolio only increased a little from week one to two, with many students yet to create an artifact or to participate in the online community. At the end of the second week I decided to explore the reasons why this was occurring. Intervention

Participant feedback at the end of week two suggested that many of the students had not explored beyond the front page, which only contained a welcome message and no immediate visual indicators of activity. This had led them to conclude that little portfolio use was taking place. A demonstration in class confirmed this.

Six of the students agreed to attend a small focus group, which suggested four reasons for low participation:

• Confirmation that there was a lack of awareness of the level of activity occurring in the online community.

• A wariness of the different ‘new’ approach. • An anxiety over sharing of artifacts.

• A hesitation due to the lack of clarity over the nature and shape of what participants should upload.

Feedback from the session divided into two categories, with immediate design changes for the e-Portfolio system that could more clearly signal the levels of activity occurring and suggestions for improving the initial induction, which is discussed in the post cycle reflection.

A new front design was brainstormed with the group, who suggested the inclusion of the following elements:

• Snapshots of the last five artifacts created.

• A list of the logged in participant’s recent activity and comments. • An easier way to see recent artifacts.

The designs for the new front page were implemented for the subsequent class (figure 4.11).

During the discussion, it became apparent that the activity table could serve a dual purpose. Originally designed to generate social network analysis diagrams and tables for this research, the activity table tracks every interaction and activity that each participant performs as they move through the system. The realisation that it could also be used to reflect recent activity back to the participants on the dashboard was significant. It also forms the basis of the recommendation system developed in cycle two. The analytic literature refers to these as process traces, generated from log files, used to reveal recent activity (Suthers & Rosen, 2011).

At the start of the third week, the front page and some of the artifacts created were demonstrated to the whole group, along with a re-emphasis of the peer nature of the community. Following these changes and demonstration, there was an increase in activity for week three with double the number of created artifacts, and many more interactions inside the e-Portfolio.

Participants who were first using the system from weeks three onwards were responded to in a similar fashion to those in the first weeks. If the initial artifacts from a user lacked reflective statements and tags, a note highlighting the advantages of their use tended to encourage students in using them soon after.

Week four and five

Week four and five were the last two with specific timetabled classes. Subjects covered include writing authentication pages with scripts to make a site secure and an introduction to object oriented programming. By this week, students had covered many of the techniques used in the creation of the portfolio itself, so code from the authentication system and artifact objects were used in class and for exercises.

One of the participants, David, had not logged in to the system at all and had not attended class since the first week, so an email was sent asking for information, and his case was passed into the University tutor system which offers pastoral support.

As participants started commenting on work from four weeks earlier, student feedback in class suggested it became unfeasible to check all old artifacts for comments. A more visible indicator was scripted for weeks six to eight, highlighting popular comment threads and artifacts on the dashboard.

Week five was the final week of attendance and also fell on the final day of term. Attendance in class was low, as many of the participants had already returned home for their Christmas break. There was a significant amount of browsing around the system by the participants, with all of them logging in and looking at existing work. Feedback from those present in class suggested that they wanted to make sure that they could accessthe e-Portfolio before they left the campus. Despite higher levels of interaction in the system, with questions, comments and views, only four participants created new artifacts.

Week six to week eight

Week six spanned the Christmas holiday week and there was a drop in activity with a single student creating artifacts, with viewing, commenting and searching on artifacts by eight others. The overall level of use was significantly lower than in earlier weeks.

Week seven was the penultimate week of the cycle and sees the participants fall into three categories:

• Three participants continuing their regular patterns of activity and creating artifacts from material from week four and five.

• Three participants with irregular or little activity, starting to create artifacts.

• Participants interacting via comments, or exploring others’ work but not creating any artifacts.

For the final week participants fall into slightly different categories:

• Four students who continue participating but don’t create any new artifacts.

• Four participants who had irregular or little activity so far, starting to create artifacts.

• Two students creating covering material from many different weeks with little interaction with the others.

• Two students who continued with little or no participation.