Project Title:

Web  2.0 electronic portfolios in the creative industries: a case study

Research Question:

What are the elements of Web 2.0 electronic portfolios which enable a creative industries research student to manage the digital recordings of  their performances within a Web 2.0 context?

Key Words.

Electronic Portfolios, Weblogs, Web 2.0, Web 1.0, Social Networking Sites, Third Party Web 2.0 Service Providers, Ethical Rights Management, Intellectual Copyright, Creative Arts, Creative Industries, Digital Media, Digital Technology.

Synopsis.

This paper discusses the research context, the research journey, the research findings, research site and how the data was collected. This paper also discusses the suggested web 2.0 electronic portfolio model which was designed from the learning activity theory that was used as part of the software development cycle. This paper also clearly states the research problem and then explores how the project participants chose to use, or not use, the system and their reasons why. This paper also explores what elements of the project participants learning activity surprised the primary researcher.

This publication concludes by suggesting  a range of web 2.0 managment policies. The primary researcher hopes that these policies may enable research students and learning institutions to develop solutuions that enable creative arts research students to introduce their web 2.0 hosted digital recordings into a learning institutions electroinic portfolio system in a more democratic fashion.

Research Context

The section of this publication will explore the research context of this project. This achieved by explaining the world in which the research took place which includes how research students were previously examined and how a new model of examiniation is creating challanges for tertiary instituions.

This research project contains two main elements. This first element was the design and installation of an electronic portfolio system for a group of four research students. A research student is defined as a student at a tertiary institution who is undertaking the writing of a thesis or the performance of a creative work at a doctoral or masters level (Barrett, H. and D. Gibson. 2003. p4).

A thesis, also known as a dissertation, explains how well the research student has explored the academic theories that relate to the topic the research student chose to explore and write about. The thesis is examined in front of a group of academic and industry peers in an oral defence, a debate, and then submitted to two examiners in printed format. The thesis is marked with comments provided and then returned to the student (QUT, 2008).

At a postgraduate level two main levels of research can be undertaken. These include the master’s thesis which is around 40,000 words and a doctorate of philosophy which is around 100,000 words. In the past the thesis was normally written and published in the form of a book. This is now changing because many research students want to create a performance and write about that performance (Blinco Kerry, et al. 2004.), (Schon, D. 1984), (Schon, D. 1987).  This is particularly so in tertiary institutes where the main teaching focuses on creative endeavours and the arts. A creative endeavour can include the creation of a Website, computer game, software program, creative writing, media studies or the development of a solution which solves a business, technicalal or social problem. The arts, in this context, can be thought of as the visual arts, dance, music, performance, architecture and photography. These two fields of creativity and the arts are combined in some tertiary institutions, and are referred to as the creative industries or the creative arts (Haseman, Bradley C. 2006.p98-106).

A new form of academic publication has emerged to help tertiary students from the creative industries to undertake research and to publish their creative performances as research. This approach is called the creative practice model (Haseman, Bradley C. 2006.p158-176). A creative work can be a dance routine, a painting, collection of poems, a sculpture, a Website or a computer game or software program. The creative practice model is normally divided between a number of words as a printed book called an exegesis and a performance of the work in front of the public and the artist’s peers (Haseman, Bradley C. 2006.p98-106).

The performance of these creative works is often documented through the use of digital tools such as digital video recorders, digital cameras and digital sound recorders. To transfer these files from these digital recording devices the recordings are digitised so that they can be stored on a storage device such as a compact disc (CD), digital versatile disc (DVD) or other digital storage device or media. The uploading of these digital performances to social networking sites such as Youtube.com is becoming popular amongst certain types of Internet users (Collins, M. et al. 1994) (Collis, B. et al.1997.p109-130). This trend is providing challenges for the administrators of electronic portfolio systems as their are a range of unanswered system implementation issue that relate to access and control and how go about designing an electronic portfolio systems to meet these unanswered questions (Belanger, F. W, Mary Beth. Jordan, et., al. 2002) (Blinco Kerry, et al. 2004).

The Problem

Having explained the research context successfully this publication will now go onto explore why these new trends are a developing as a potential problem for research students and the adminstrators of elcectroinc portfolio systems in creative arts tertiary institutions.

These digital recordings are starting to provide challenges for the administrators of tertiary institutions (Dawson, S. 2006.p495-510). These challenges relate to how to manage the following list of complex issues of access and control (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2003) (Chambers, S. M. W., Leah E. 2007.p3) (Collis, B. et al. 1997.p109-130) (Dillon, S and Brown A, in The Idea Group. 2006. p418-431). These challenges include how the tertiary institution and researcher manage:

1.     “How does a tertiary institution mange any ethical disputes which may arise from when a research student uploads audio visual materials into a student electronic portfolio?” (Chan, S. 2001). (Dillon, S. 2002) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2003) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2004), (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a). (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a) (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003c.p 27-30)

2.    “Who owns the intellectual property and the copyright of those audio visual materials when they become integrated within a student electronic portfolio? (Dillon, S. 2002) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2003) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2004), (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a). (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a) (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003c.p 27-30)”.

3.    “Who owns the electronic portfolio? Is it the student or the institution?” (Dillon, S. 2002) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2003) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2004), (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a). (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a) (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003c.p 27-30)

4.    “Who has access to the electronic portfolio and the associated audio visual materials?” (Dillon, S. 2002) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2003) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2004), (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a). (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a) (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003c.p 27-30)

5.   ” Who is responsible for the costs of the storage of the electronic portfolio and audio visual materials?” (Dillon, S. 2002) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2003) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2004), (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a). (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a) (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003c.p 27-30)

6.    “Is it the student or the tertiary institution that controls the aesthetic form of the electronic portfolio?”  (Dillon, S. 2002) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2003) (Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. 2004), (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a). (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003a) (Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. 2003c.p 27-30)

The research site and the research journey

This section of this publication explains where the research was carried out and exmaines the research journey. Exploring these two elements of the research site and the research journey help provide more background to the reader about the research site and the some of the research challanges that arose during the research project.

The research was carried out at the Queensland University of Technologies (QUT) Creative Industries Faculty. QUT is a research and teaching university in Brisbane, Queensland Australia. QUT has approximately 40,000 students.  QUT offers a wide range of studies and applied research which is best suited to the needs of industry and the community (QUT.2008). The school of music is situated in the Creative Industries Faculties portfolio of music, communication and design and visual arts. QUT has campuses at Gardens Point, Kelvin Grove, Carseldine and Caboolture.

The research has been performed from June 2006 until December 2008. Ethical clearance was provided by the university in September 2006. The first two years of research was on a full-time basis, starting in November 2005, which was converted to part-time study after a leave of absence to attend to personal and family matters. This is the second project for the primary researcher after a change of supervisors and projects in April of 2006.

Delays in the project have included a difficulty with some computer hardware which delayed the project by about six months. This difficulty was resolved with assistance from the key stakeholders and the supervisory team. Consequently the project was given special project status by the Creative Industries Faculty. This special status afforded the project with special permission to install an open source software product and to prototype the software from a permanent Web address within QUT. The Web address for the project is http://dmap.ci.qut.edu.au. Intensive and highly professional technical support was also provided by the Creative Industries Faculty technical support team.

Other invaluable support came in the form of informal feedback from the then interim director for the Institute for Creative Industries and Innovation (ici), Professor Greg Hearn. This relationship ensured that research was not being duplicated and was carried out in a collaborative and supportive manner. Associate Professor Helen Partridge has also provided an informal mentor-ship in advising the primary researcher on research matters, providing informal feedback, constructive suggestions and an independent view of issues that arose during the research journey. Other invaluable support has come from Dr. Anne Berry who has provide editorial support in the later stages of this project. The research was funded by a  Faculty of Information Technology scholarship with supervisory support provided by Dr. Steve Dillon, Dr. Robert Davidson and Dr. Glenn Smith. Key stake holders include QUT , the Creative Industries Faculty, the Faculty of Information Technology and the Australasian CRC for Interaction Design Pty Ltd (ACID).

The Case Study

Having successfully explained the research problem, the research site, the research context and the research journey we can now start to explore the method that was used to gather and analyse data gathered over the course of the study. This section of this publication also discusses the project participants and their backgrounds.

The use of the ‘Software development As action Research’ methodology (SoDaR) was used to inform the primary researcher of what type of application was most suitable for the learning activity to be undertaken (Brown, Andrew R. 2007.p6). The SoDaR methodology also allowed for qaulitative data to be gathered from a case study using one-on-one interviews, focus groups and the textual analysis of those interviews and focus group. This data became the qaulitative data which would inform the findings of the project (Brown, Andrew R. 2007.p6)

The participants

The participants were contacted from a list supplied by the supervisory team. The initial email included an invitation to the participants to participate in the project. The primary researcher for this project organised to meet with each participant before the focus group and introduced the participant to the project as well as undertaking the organisation of administrative matters such as the signing of the participant information sheet and ethical approval forms. This was also an informal opportunity for the participants and the primary researcher to get to know each other.

Participant description

Participant Alpha 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 of point to other Websites he owns. Participant Alpha discontinued involvement fairly early into the project.

Participant Beta is a pianist with musical interests in composition and music teaching. Participant Beta was undertaking a masters of arts music degree and is also technologically competent. Participant Beta 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.

Participant Gamma is a male in his early 30’s who is interested in creating musical productions and musical theatre. Participant Gamma is also technically competent and was attracted to the project as he wanted to develop a place were he could publish his musical scores and attract attention to his doctoral studies. Participant Gamma discontinued involvement in the project shortly after the first focus group.

Participant Theta is a male in his late 20’s who is interested in musical directorship in church based organisations. Participant Theta is also technically competent and was attracted to the project as he wanted to find an online solution which would allow him to discuss his research in seminars and to have a Web presence to which he could point his key stakeholders to. Participant Theta also completed all learning activities and completed their participation in the project as expected.

THE Data Gathering Phase

This section of this publication  will explore how the primary researcher designed the focus groups, the one-on-one interviews and what was discerned from the interviews and the focus group. The software development phase discusess how the software was developed using the Software Development as Action Research method (SoDaR). This section will also discuss how the SoDaR method was used to inform the primary researcher of the project participants preference in electronic portfolio choice by the using a technique known as ‘learning activity theory analysis’(Brown, Andrew R. 2007.p6). Or, to put it in a more straight forwad manner, how and why did the project participant choose to use a Web 1.0 context or a Web 2.0 electronic portfolio context(Brown, Andrew R. 2007.p6).This section of the publication also explains what is meant by a Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 electronic portfolio context.

The Focus Group

One focus group was held at the start of the project in a small tutorial room on campus. The four project participants were invited and attended. The focus group discussed the participant’s preference of how they would like to use the electronic portfolio system. Other issues discussed included their range of experience levels with technology. We also discussed the Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 design models developed for this project and which approach they preferred (O’Reilly, T. 2005). Other issues discussed included how the electronic portfolios should look when displayed in a Web browser such as Internet Explorer (Ravet, S. 2007).

At this stage the project was being hosted via an external Web host which was controlled by the primary researcher for this project. Agreement on how to proceed was reached with the group. This site was then moved to a school of music Web server shortly after the focus group. The focus group was video taped and transcribed into a Microsoft-Word document and the analogue video recording converted to a digital file format and copied to a DVD.

Other attempts were made to hold further focus groups but after several email campaigns and phone calls it was not possible to organise a time and place which was suitable for all the participants . This is understandable given that post graduate students are very busy people and are often time poor.

The Interviews

Two one-on-one interviews of 45 minutes duration each were carried out. The participants were emailed on nearly 20 occasions seeking a suitable time to organise an interview with them. Multiple phone calls were also made. The supervisory team assisted in organising contact with the project participants. However only two of the four participants made themselves available for interview. This is also understandable given that the participants themselves are research students and very busy people.

The interviews were designed as semi-structured, one-on-one interviews which lasted about 45 minutes each and were carried out at a popular coffee shop at the research site. The interviews focused on the participant’s relationship to their music, their relationship and their understanding of technology and their experience with the electronic portfolio system developed for this project (Wiersma, W. 1986), (Brown, Andrew R. 2007.p6) Yin,1981.p3). The interviews were digitally recorded as an audio file, transcribed and stored on a DVD in a secure off-line location.

The software development phase

The software development phase of this research project used a user centred design approach known as Software Development as Action Research (SoDaR) which discovered the design solution (Brown, Andrew R. 2007.p6). The design solution evolved after identifying an open-source software program which meant the entire selection criterion for this project (Armitage, S. and Steeples, 1996.). The eventual product chosen was Wordpress-Mu which is a multi-user multi-site Weblog.

Wordpress-Mu allows for up to 32,000 users to have their own Weblog portal and administration screen and their own Web address. Web 2.0 integration is achieved through the use of plug-ins and customised themes. The implemented model provides examples of how four research students used, or decided not to use, their electronic portfolio in a Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 context. These examples can be viewed via this Web address http://dmap.ci.qut.edu.au.

Triangulation of Data

The case study approach helps to triangulate the research data by providing three types of research evidence. This evidence comes from the transcribed interviews,  a digital recording of the focus group, and the digital recordings of the interviews. The evidential research data will be included as summaries in the final thesis and the transcript of interview and digital recordings attached as appendices.

Findings

This section of this publication discusses the findings which came about from the textual analysis of the transcribed interviews and  focus group with an examination of the learning activity outcomes discussed in detail. This section of the publication also examines the relevance of the different electronic portfolio contexts made available to the project participants. The role of the one-on-training is also discussed and examines the impact that the training may have had on the participants use of the system.

While the data set for this project is small some limited meaningful findings can be drawn from the evidential data. For example, a textual analysis of the focus group demonstrated a strong preference with three of the four participants voting for a Web 1.0 model. The Web 1.0 model implemented as part of the electronic portfolio system allowed the students to store all their digital files locally within the electronic portfolio system on the QUT server. This preference was surprising to the primary researcher of this project as much of the literature on user centred design suggests that most Internet users have a strong preference for Web 2.0 based Web applications.  The project participants main reasons  for not wanting to use the Web 2.0 model contradicted this common belief that most Internet users are now preferring a Web 2.0 context for managing their digitized performances.

This discussion bought to the surface a number of other fears about a Web 2.0 based electronic portfolio system. These fears included:

• A fear that a Web 2.0 service provider may go out of business denying the participants access to their research and artefacts;
• The fear that suggested a Web 2.0 model was too complex;
• Fearful of how reliable the underlying technology was in terms of the number of connections to external servers;
• The fear that making things too technical would increase the risk of something going wrong; and
• Other fears included what would happen if the external Web 2.0 service provider changed their terms of service and took control of a Participants intellectual property.

Learning activity theory outcomes

The learning activity challenges designed as part of the software development cycle included:

• using the account activation wizard to activate their own electronic portfolio account;
• the creation of an academic abstract describing the participants project;
• the creation of a post and a page with context either as text, video or music; and
  the uploading of a file to a post (Brown, Andrew R. 2007.p6)

The purpose behind setting these learning tasks was to discern if the learning activity would inform the primary researcher of how to create the research question (Armitage, S. and Steeples, 1996.). That is to say, how the participants went about undertaking these learning challenges would predicate what style of electronic learning portfolio context would be offered to the participants.

The results of the learning activity tasks suggested that there was a split in the type of preferred electronic portfolio context amongst the participants. For example, even though only two participants completed the learning activity challenges they chose to go about achieving them in different ways. Reflection on this research outcome has helped to inform the design of the research question for this project.

This is why the ability to integrate Web 2.0 hosted digital media from external web service providers social networking sites and the ability to allow the electronic portfolio to be used as a Web 1.0 model was built into the design of the electronic portfolio system. This is why this publication refers to a Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 electronic portfolio context.

For example, participant Beta elected to use a Web 1.0 model, while participant Theta chose to use a Web 2.0 model. Participant Theta integrated advanced streaming multimedia successfully inserting a number of music videos into his electronic portfolio. Participant Theta then highlighted the type of music that was involved in his research by referring to these inserted videos. Participant Theta achieved this by creating a series of Weblog posts which discussed why the music clips where important to his research. Participant Theta also used his Web 2.0 electronic portfolio to present his work at his final progress seminar held on site at the university.

In contrast to participant Theta participant Beta worked mainly with text based files which included abstracts, literature reviews, examples of her publications being worked on with her academic supervisor  and resumes. Participant Beta was able to create posts, upload artefacts, discuss those artefacts in posts, create pages and link between posts within her electronic portfolio.

Participant Beta also extended on her own learning activity by linking to external websites successfully without input from the primary researcher. Participant Beta demonstrated advanced problem solving which enabled her to work around a technical problem that arose in her use of the electronic portfolio by solving the problem herself. For example, participant Beta realized that the software was incorrectly removing elements of text in a post after inserting several large pages of text. Participant Beta was frustrated after loosing the contents of that post. Participant Beta contacted the primary researcher for help which was received within 24 hours. However, before technical help arrived participant Beta had worked out how to attach large files to a post as a work around to this problem. Consequently the primary researcher installed software plug-in that would ensure that participant Beta’s problem would not occur again. Participant Beta and the primary researcher addressed this change through one of their one-on-one training sessions.

Choosing different electronic portfolio contexts?

The choice of different electronic portfolio contexts, that is Web 2.0 versus Web 1.0 contexts, also surprised the primary researcher. This was because there is no clear reason, from the evidential research, as to why participants Beta and Theta chose their preferred electronic portfolio context, which was Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 respectively. Perhaps, a more inquisitive set of question was required? Perhaps the choice of digital media which expresses the participant’s performances, in a research context, is the determinant of electronic portfolio context choice. It could be that as most researchers will know what this media will be, as most research students will know this through supervisory feedback, that this choice of media  will inform the correct choice of electronic portfolio contexts for the research student. This underlying puzzle may be suggesting that Web 2.0 electronic portfolio models will prove more useful for people who have large amounts of digitally recorded performances than for those who work mostly with text based artefacts. Although textual based works can also work well in a Web 2.0 based electronic portfolio system, which is another enigma of electronic portfolio research in this context.

One-on-one intensive training and technical support.

On a reflective note participants Theta and Beta made themselves available to the offer of in-depth one-on-one training sessions, which was offered to all participants at the start of the project and was carried out by the primary researcher. This element of training was part of the SoDaR method implemented for this project. Participant Beta had two sessions lasting up-to two and a half hours  and was undertaken at a popular campus coffee shop. These training sessions focused on how to use the Wordpress-mu software, enter text, add photos, insert music and videos files and integrate Web 2.0 streaming media. Other issues covered included access to technical help, how to find out information about Wordpress-Mu and were the software’s documentation was stored on the Wordpress.org Website. Participant Theta also requested some training which occurred in one of the Creative Industries Faculties training laboratories. However, participant Theta only received one short session of about 45 minutes.

Technical support was provided by the primary researcher using email requests, simple messaging service (sms) contacts and phone-calls. Surprisingly there were very few requests for help from both participants. This is either because the software used had no major problems for the user. The other possibility is that the technical support and training assisted in reducing the amount of support calls, or perhaps it was reflective of the small amount of activity from such a small group of participants?

Research Outcomes

In this section the research outcomes of the project will be discussed, this will include electronic portfolio usage preferences and what outcomes were achieved for all the project participants. This section will also discuss the design problems which were highlighted through the case study and what can be learned from those problems.

Participants Alpha and Gamma now have their own Websites which sit within their own Web 2.0 model. This is an interesting development because they did not want to use the electronic portfolio system provided for them. Chiefly their reason for not using the electronic portfolio had to do with the facility not being accessible to the public. This is also another issue that relates to access and control and organising appropriate levels of access and control which meets the needs of all the participants in a balanced manner. This was confirmed in the one-on-one interview with participant Alpha. Although, it is not known why participant Gamma choose not to participate as he was not interviewed. However, anecdotal evidence does come from a brief email with participant Gamma which stated that he needed a Website that was publicly available.

The textual analysis of the interviews has demonstrated that while the electronic portfolio system software worked well and was easy to use and adequately supported fifty percent of the participants elected to make their own Web hosting arrangements with the other 50% of the participants choosing to use the electronic portfolio system developed for this project. Of the fifty percent of participants who stayed with the electronic portfolio system designed for this project fifty percent of those participants choose to use a Web 1.0 context and the other fifty percent choose a Web 2.0 context based electronic portfolio model. This small data set does not give enough evidence to draw any conclusive conclusions about electronic portfolio contextual preference trends from the group of remaining participants.

Suggested design problems with the suggested electronic portfolio model

The main difficulty with the design of the electronic portfolio system was that it was not available to be viewed by the public and access had to be prearranged with the administrator of the electronic portfolio system. The reason the system was made private was from requests made by some of the participants during the focus group. This finding demonstrates the complexity of discerning how to balance the competing needs of project participants, even in a small scale prototype such as this one (Jafari, A. and G. E. Greenburg. 2003.p66) (Jafari, A. M., Pat. Carmean, Colleen. 2006. p2-27). Perhaps one approach to solving this dilemma would have been to have two electronic portfolio systems installed, one which is private and another which is made public (Paulsen, M, F, 2003). While the Wordpress-mu software does support the ability to make posts and pages private with password protection it is easy to forget to set these options when writing and editing. For researchers with potentially sensitive research artefacts this could be quiet damaging to the researchers reputation if any sensitive materials were left open for public view.

The public and private model would allow the participants greater choice in whether or not to make their work public or private. The affordance here is that security and privacy are enhanced  but the negative side of the argument is that there is an increased delay in providing interested parties with access to the electronic portfolio of the project participant.

Industry feedback suggested that the other deficiency was the lack in ability to customize the cascading style sheets by the user (Plasteed, T. 2008). This approach allows more advanced users the ability to make highly advanced graphical and cosmetic changes to how their electronic portfolio might look and feel.  Other limitations included the inability to link each electronic portfolio to each other automatically and the inability of the software to create an about me page which would have made the system look more like a traditional electronic portfolio system. Other beneficial functions would have included the ability to have a list of friends and contacts published on the front page of each participants electronic portfolio making the system look more like current social networking sites like Facebook.com and Ning.com as suggested by some of the projects key stake holders.

Other concerns related to the inability of the electronic portfolio to share data with the QUT’s learning management system. However, subsequent research has shown that these issues could be resolved through the creation of customized plug-ins  designed to achieve specific goals which would allow both software systems to communicate and share data with each other and the administrators of both systems (Ravet, S. 2007), (Richardson, H. C. W., Rob. 2005), (Stuart, D et al, 1999).

The use of plug-ins also provides some future proofing for the system as future needs can be met by the creation of task specific plug-ins as needs are identified, new technologies emerge and new Web 2.0 third party services evolve and become popular amongst research students and academic staff. These design challenges could be addressed during a later iteration of the software development phase.

Recommendations

This section of this publication discusses the recommendation from the fidings which have been illimuniated from analysing the research data learning activity theorty outcomes. The primary researcher than goes on  to suggest web 2.0  management approaches which could sucessfully integrate web 2.0 and web 1.0 electronic portfolio contexts into a learning institutions electronic learning portfolio systems.

This section of the publication also discusses the role that intensive technical support played in the project participants use of the system and subsequently tries to tease out if their is a relationship between the technical support and lack of technical request for technical help.

The literature review for this thesis and consequent findings suggest that there are a number of unanswered Web 2.0 and Web 1.0 contextual management issues for the designers of this type of electronic portfolio system. The application, use and integration of digitally recorded performances hosted from Web 2.0 and third party services is still highly problematic for tertiary institutions. The following recommendations are suggested as one approach in how a Web 2.0 based electronic portfolio context may be developed to assist in clarifying how to address these issues.

Legal, ethical and intellectual property rights

Web 2.0 social networking sites use a terms of services agreement to indicate the legal, ethical and intellectual property conditions expected of their users when a user signs up to use their services. The primary researcher for this project suggests, that were beneficial to the research student, an appropriate terms of service agreement may move the responsibility of these issues to the third party provider which means these issues are less of a concern for tertiary institutions.

Technical support

Technical support for the use of a Web 2.0 electronic portfolio artefact’s can be achieved by the use of a Web 2.0 service providers technical support agreement. Tertiary institutions could agree to allow a research student to integrate digital recordings of the performances to be hosted on a Web 2.0 service provider’s site. The research student could then integrate these digital recordings via the use of software plug-in into a Web 2.0 enabled electronic portfolio.

If both the research student and tertiary institution agreed that it was appropriate  technical support for the digital recordings hosted on the Web 2.0 services Website would become the responsibility of the Web 2.0 Websites technical support agreement with the research student. Examples of this type of terms of service agreement can include Youtube.com and Last.fm, although this may change as these services evolve overtime.

Aesthetic look and feel

If the correct tool to host the Web 2.0 enabled electronic portfolio is chosen the research student can be given the option to select a pre-configured graphical theme which would help the research student to customize their electronic portfolios look and feel. This functionality would help the research student to customize their own online branding and identity which could help project their identity through their electronic portfolio. This is a different approach to the Web 1.0 electronic portfolio model which typically forces all users to have the same unchangeable theme. The Web 1.0 approach allows the tertiary institution to control its corporate branding standards within the Web 1.0 electronic portfolio system. In contrast to a Web 1.0 electronic portfolio context the Web 2.0 electronic portfolio system, as prototyped for this project, allowed the participants to freely choose from a range of customized themes. The Web 2.0 context allowed the participants to achieve their own look and feel by using their own aesthetic judgement. The findings from the focus groups and interviews suggested that this element of the Web 2.0 electronic portfolio approach was a highly desirable preference amongst the group.

The following table summarises the Web 2.0 management issues and some suggested Web 2.0 approaches.

Reference List

Armitage, S. and Steeples, (1996). C. ‘Guidelines for Using Computer Conferencing in Teaching’ BT CMC in HE Newsletter Issue 4 (, see http://www.lancs.ac.uk/users/ktru/cmc-top.htm).

Barrett, H. and D. Gibson (2003). “Directions in Electronic Portfolio
Development.” Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education
2(4).

Barrett, H. C. (2005). Researching Electronic Portfolios and Learner Engagement.

Bates, Anthony. Managing Technological Change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 2000. pp. 138, 144.

Belanger, F. W, Mary Beth. Jordan, et., al. (2002). Aligning IS research and practice: A research agenda for virtual work. Unpublished manuscript.

Brown, Andrew R. (2007) Software Development as Music Education Research. International Journal of Education & the Arts 8(6).

Bruckman, A. and Resnick, M. ‘The MediaMOO Project: Constructionism and Professional Community’ (MIT Media Lab, 1995, available at: ftp://ftp.media.mit.edu/pub/asb/papers/convergence.txt).

Blinco Kerry, et al. (2004). Trends and Issues in E-learning Infrastructure Development. A White Paper for alt-i-lab 2004 Prepared on behalf of DEST (Australia) and JISC-CETIS (UK). Bristol, U.K, the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC).

Bengt Göransson, J. G. I. B. (2003). The usability design process - integrating user-centered systems design in the software development process. 8: 111-131.

Brown, Andrew R. (2007) Software Development as Music Education Research.  International Journal of Education & the Arts 8(6).

Bruns, Axel (2007) Produsage, Generation C, and Their Effects on the
Democratic Process. In Proceedings Media in Transition 5, MIT, Boston.

Chan, S. (2001). “D-MAP Code of Ethics for Students and Staff.” Ethical and Policy Issues in Information Technologies.

Chambers, S. M. W., Leah E. (2007). “The electronic portfolio journey: a year later.” Education Spring 2007(127): 3.

Collins, M. et al. (1994) Computer-Mediated Communication and the Online Classroom (New Jersey,

Collis, B. et al. (1997) ‘Web Environments for Group-Based Project Work in Higher Education’, International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, AACE 3.2 (1997), pp. 109-130.

Davidson, L. (1992). Arts Propel: A handbook for music (with video of  evaluation methods and approaches). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero.

Dillon, S. (2002). Digital multi media portfolios (D-MAP) in music learning. Proceedings of the Closing the Loop: 2002 Evaluations and Assessment Conference.

Dawson, S. (2006). “Online forum discussion interactions as an indicator of student community.” Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 22(4): 495-510.

Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. (2003). Constructing a new conceptual framework for using digital technologies in achieving better arts assessment. Queensland Journal of Music Education, 1.

Dillon, S., & Nalder, G. (2004). A preliminary research paper examining the need to construct a new conceptual framework for using digital technologies in achieving better arts assessment. Queensland Journal of Music Education.

Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. (2003a). Digital media assessment portfolios. Proceedings of the DMAP Critical Review. Colloquium, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. (2003b, August 30-31). Digital multi media portfolios (D-MAP) in music learning. Proceedings of Loud & Clear: Making Meaningful Music in the Middle Years, Melbourne, Australia.

Dillon, S., Nalder, G., Brown, A., & Smith, J. (2003c, September 27-30)
Digital multi media portfolios (D-MAP) in music learning. In Proceedings of the Artistic Practice as Research: 25th Annual Conference of the Australian Association for Research in Music Education, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.

Dillon, S and Brown A, in The Idea Group. (2006). The Art of ePortfolios: Insights from the creative arts experience. In A. J. a. C. Kaufman (Ed.), Handbook of Research on ePortfolios: Concepts, Technology and Case Studies (pp. 418-431). Indianapolis: Idea- Group Inc.

Forth, M. (2003). Connectivity Does Not Ensure Community: On Social Capital, Networks And Communities Of Place. Itira Conference December 2003. Massachusetts Institute of Technology., Creative Industries Research and Applications Centre Queensland University of Technology.

Gardner, H. (1988). “Toward More Effective Arts Education.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 22(1): 157-167.

Haseman, Bradley C. (2005) Creative Practices, in Hartley, John, Eds. Creative Industries, pages pp. 158-176. Blackwell Publishing.

Haseman, Bradley C. (2006) A Manifesto for Performative Research. Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, theme issue “Practice-led Research” February(118):pp. 98-106.

Jafari, A. and G. E. Greenburg (2003). Electronic Portfolio White Paper Version 1.0. Denver, Colarado, ePortConsortium: 66.

Jafari, A. M., Pat. Carmean, Colleen. (2006). A Research Study on Current CMS and Next Generation eLearning environments. C. I. U. I. USA. Indianapolis: 2-27.

Nalder, G., Dillon, S., Brown, A., & Smith, J. (2004, December 20-23). Arts education for a “telematic” future. Proceedings of the Imagine Symposia

Paulsen, M, F, 2003. Online Education and Learning Management Systems - Global ELearning in a Scandinavian Perspective.

Plasteed, T. 2008. Personal email communication.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved August 10, 2008, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.

Ravet, S. (2007). For an ePortfolio enabled architecture Position Paper (v 1.1), Eiflel: 9.

Resnick, M. (1994). Turtles, termites, and traffic jams: Explorations in massively parallel microworlds. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Resnick, M., B. Myers, et al. (2005). Design Principles for Tools to Support Creative Thinking. Maryland, USA University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA 301.405.1000.

Richardson, H. C. W., Rob. (2005). Developing and Implementing a Metholdology for Reviewing E-portfolio Products. A report to JISC. T. C. f. R. Achievement. Wigan U.K.

Schon, D. (1984). The Reflective Practitioner. New York, USA, Basic Books, Harper Colophon.

Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Fransisco, USA, Jossey Bass Publishers.

Scripp, L., & Gray, J. (1992). The Arts Propel video handbook. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero.

Seidel, S. (2001). The evidence project: A collaborative approach to understanding and improving teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero.

Seidel, S. (2006). “Project Zero at the Harvard Graduate School of Education : Update on Current Work, July 2006.” Harvard Graduate School of Education online Journal.

Smith, J., Dillon, S., Nalder, G., & Brown, A. (2004). Digital multimedia portfolios supporting authentic learning in the arts. In Proceedings

Smith, J. (2002). Utilizing Digital Technologies to enhance student learning and authentic assessment in dance (An interim discussion on research to date). Closing the Loop: 2002 Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 2002 Evaluations and Assessment Conference, Australian Technology Network Universities.

Smith, J., S. Dillon, et al. (2004). Digital multimedia portfolios supporting authentic learning in the Arts ePortfolio Conference La Rochelle, France.

Smith, J., S. Dillon, et al. (2004). Digital multimedia portfolios supporting authentic learning in the Arts. ePortfolio - 2004 - Transforming individual
and organisational learning La Rochelle, France

Steeples, C. Effective Strategies for On-Line Tutoring (1998) (SEDA publication)

Steeples, C. et al. ‘Flexible Learning in Higher Education: The Use of Computer-Mediated Communications’ Computers & Education 1.2 (1994), pp. 83-90.

Stuart, D et al, (1999). Online Teaching: Tools & Projects

Stuart D. Lee, Susan Armitage, Paul Groves, and Chris Stephens (1999)
Report commissioned by the JISC Technology Applications Programme, © 1999 Available from: http://www.oucs.ox.ac.uk/ltg/projects/jtap/reports/teaching/index.html Date:08-06-2008

Wiersma, W. (1986). Research methods in Education: An Introduction. Boston, Allyn and Bacon, Inc.

Yin, R. (1981). “The case study as a serious research strategy.” Knowledge: Creations, Diffusions, Utiliizations 3.