1. www.lydiaarnold.net

3.  Online student survey, facilitator interview, documentary evidence (community archives).

4.  Gradually assembled.  A sequence of short pieces (patches).  Sharing within a small group of students.  Reflexive commentary (stitching). An outline of the patchwork text

6.  “reflect on what has been learned in the module in order to revise personal frames of reference and promote self exploration ” (McKenzie, 2006, p.153)

7.  How to the patches link? What are the common themes?  What has been learned?  Has anything surprised you? ( have your thoughts or beliefs been challenged or changed?).  To what extent have you met the learning outcomes?  What might you have done differently in this module?  How would you anticipate the learning from this module being used in future study or practice?

8. “a general name for written texts where the unifying structure is not simply a linear narrative but a series of loosely linked pieces illustrating a theme or gradually building up a set of perspectives” (Winter, 1999, p. 67). Patchwork Media A non linear portfolio that embraces multimedia elements, e-learning patches and online community learning (McGuire et al. 2006).

9.  Resources  Community  Assessment product

10.  Constructive alignment

11.  Normalizing the exotic

12.  Model resource usage

13.  Negotiation of understanding  “Half of the respondents in the student survey cited discussion of learning outcomes or criteria, to be a key way in which the community supports the production of patchwork, whilst eighteen of the twenty-two surveyed students agreed that the online community helped them to understand what was required for each patch”.

14.  Negotiation of assessment media or product.  “Learners are encouraged to personalize their learning activities and assessment products. Though activities are suggested these are only one way in which learners can meet the learning outcomes”.

15.  Peer review  Students are asked to share patches for review in the online community. After review they undertake refinement of the patch and they may adapt their understanding.

16.  Trepidation  Students can come to the peer review process with high degrees of trepidation. Seventeen of the twenty- two students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed with the statement sharing my work in the online community was difficult at first, whilst nineteen of the sample agreed that offering feedback in the community was initially difficult.  Lack of visual Cues  Sense of inadequacy

17.  The learners explain …  I do worry about leaving peer reviews, I am always concerned that what I write could be misinterpreted and cause unnecessary distress. I feel that as we only communicate online and not face to face that we must make the extra effort to ensure that our responses are clear and concise.  [I] felt that my comments could be construed as over- critical.  When I am still struggling to produce my own work to any sort of acceptable standard I don't believe I can give any sort of constructive help to others.

18.  Modelling  Structure › Having a framework appears to transfer legitimacy to their critique, thus removing the fear.

19.  Advantages & difficulties › Asynchronous › One to many › Archive (pace) › Learning to give and receive feedback in a constructive way › Non participation › A contradiction : perfection vs. apprenticeship

21.  No teaching of technology  No prescription

22.  The media used is selected by the students themselves. Learners are encouraged to consider and balance their technical skill and aspirations, the appropriateness of the media for the message that they seek to deliver, the needs of their workplace setting and the time available for the task.

23.  Real world relevance  Dissemination & impact  Additional feedback  Audience

24.  Wow!  Parameters  Time

25. Integrating e-learning patches and web 2 infrastructure in to the student experience