paulcstephensen.com » Uncategorized http://paulcstephensen.com Designing ePortfolios for music postgraduate study. A practice-led inquiry. Wed, 16 Feb 2011 12:45:32 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 Appendicies http://paulcstephensen.com/blog/2011/02/06/appendicies/ http://paulcstephensen.com/blog/2011/02/06/appendicies/#comments Sun, 06 Feb 2011 05:26:09 +0000 Paul Stephesnen http://paulcstephensen.com/?p=184 Continue reading →]]> Below is a list of all the appendices for my thesis as many people have been asking for individual copies. The table below lists the name of the Appendix, the link to the appendix and a summary of what is in the appendix and why I used it.

Appendix

Description
Appendix 1 Focus Group Summary

Transcripts of the focus group summarised to document how I used direct feedback from the participants to discuss what type of ePortfolio system they wanted me to design for them.
Appendix 2 | Interview with Tina
 Transcripts of a semi structured interview with participant Tina.

Tina is a pianist with musical interests in composition and music teaching. She was undertaking a masters of Arts music degree and also demonstrated a high level of comfort and competency with technology use in her
practice. Tina was attracted to the project as she wanted to find a way of storing all her research in one online facility and completed all learning activities and completed their participation in the project as expected.
Appendix 3 | Interview with Arthur
 Transcripts of a semi structured interview with participant Arthur.

Arthur is a male instrumentalist with interest in guitar, drums and the Irish rock genre and is aged in his early 40′s. This participant is technology confident with skills in Web design and computer programming. This participant
is currently completing a doctorate of philosophy and was attracted to the project as he was interested in extending his network of websites and creating a centralised jumping-off point to other websites he owns.
Appendix 4 | Mobile Learning Styles A summary of a my meta-contextual review on  Mobile Learning Styles.

This meta-study, as referenced in Appendix 4 demonstrated that there is a change in how certain generations of learners are using mobile phones and devices to create, capture and share digital mobile content. This trend has implications for interactions and designers who may have to consider how they will integrate these technologies in Web 2.0 ePortfolio design. This appendix contains several long quotes which helped to evidence this trend.
Appendix 5 |List of Content Management
Systems Examined.		 A simple list of content management systems I examined and links to website for each content management system. There are 30 open source content management systems listed.
Appendix Appendix 6 | A list of the Content Management System
selection criteria and test process		 This Appendix has a  table with a 16 step quick reference card for how to choose a Content Management System based on the criterion set by my key stake holders. Other Web 2.0 ePortfolio designers may find this a helpful methodology for adapting to their own projects.
Appendix 7 | Software selection criterion This table documents and provides evidence of the key stake holders requirements of the Content Management System that would be customised to create the Web 2.0 ePortfolio system.
Appendix 8| Table 2.0 SoDaR by phase This table was presented as away of documenting how I implemented the Software Development as Research methodology which was used for the enquiry part of this study. I have also used this table as a quick reference card for other Web 2.0 ePortfolio Designers who have asked me about implementing a Web 2.0 ePortfolio system.
Appendix 9| Barrett’s Web 2.0 ePortfolios characteristics Dr Helen Barrett’s  helped to provide me with an informed context on the attributes that a Web 2.0 ePortfolio might have. This was a large document that was too big to fit into the main thesis but valuable enough for it to be included as an Appendix. Dr Barrett refers to Web 2.0 characteristics which are documented in this Appendix.
Appendix Appendix 10 | Key Stake holders project
requirements.		 This appendix provides evidence of the Key Stake holders project requirements for the design of the Web 2.0 ePortfolio system.
]]> http://paulcstephensen.com/blog/2011/02/06/appendicies/feed/ 0 Abstract http://paulcstephensen.com/blog/2010/10/22/abstract/ http://paulcstephensen.com/blog/2010/10/22/abstract/#comments Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:29:54 +0000 Paul Stephesnen http://paulcstephensen.com/?p=174 Continue reading →]]> Title: Designing ePortfolios for music

postgraduate study. A practice-led inquiry.

sooner or later a tale of two e-portfolios systems from Paul Stephensen on Vimeo.

In this research I have examined how ePortfolios can be designed for Music postgraduate study through a practice led research inquiry. This process involved designing two Web 2.0 ePortfolio systems for a group of five post graduate music research students. The design process revolved around the application of an iterative methodology called Software Develop as Research (SoDaR) that seeks to simultaneously develop design and pedagogy. The approach I implemented to designing these ePortfolio systems applied four theoretical protocols to examine the use of digitised artefacts in ePortfolio systems to enable a dynamic and inclusive dialogue around representations of the students work.

The research and design process involved an analysis of existing software and literature with a focus upon identifying the affordances of available Web 2.0 software and the applications of these ideas within 21st Century life. The five post graduate music students each posed different needs in relation to the management of digitised artefacts and the communication of their work amongst peers, supervisors and public display. An ePortfolio was developed for each of them that was flexible enough to address their needs within the university setting.

However in this first SoDaR iteration data gathering phase I identified aspects of the university context that presented a negative case that impacted upon the design and usage of the ePortfolios and prevented uptake. Whilst the portfolio itself functioned effectively, the university policies and technical requirements prevented serious use. The negative case analysis of the case study revealed that Access and Control and Implementation, Technical and Policy Constraints protocols where limiting user uptake. From the semi-structured interviews carried out as part of this study participant feedback revealed that whilst the participants did not use the ePortfolio system I designed, each student was employing Web 2.0 social networking and storage processes in their lives and research. In the subsequent iterations I then designed a more ‘ideal’ system that could be applied outside of the University context that draws upon the employment of these resources. In conclusion I suggest recommendations about ePortfolio design that considers what the applications of the theoretical protocols reveal about creative arts settings. The transferability of these recommendations are of course dependent upon the reapplication of the theoretical protocols in a new context. To address the mobility of ePortfolio design between Institutions and wider settings I have also designed a prototype for a business card sized USB portal for the artists’ ePortfolio. This research project is not a static one; it stands as an evolving design for a Web 2.0 ePortfolio that seeks to refer to users needs, institutional and professional contexts and the development of software that can be incorporated within the design. What it potentially provides to creative artist is an opportunity to have a dialogue about art with artefacts of the artist products and processes in that discussion.

]]> http://paulcstephensen.com/blog/2010/10/22/abstract/feed/ 0