# Content Curation in E-Learning: A Case of Study with Spanish Engineering Students
## 4 Results and Discussion
### Rubric, Content Curation, and Academic Results  
The evaluation rubric was designed considering by other authors' suggestions [37; 68; 69; 70] and assigns a score to four different issues (Figure 3). Firstly, it is assessed how the students are involved in the collaborative work, and active participation, comments, and suggestions are the most valued aspects. The \"ICT tools management\" and \"content curation\" sections evaluate if the students carry out the content curation steps. It is assessed if the students used the suggested tools at each step and if they generated quality content. Finally, the \"final report\" section assesses whether the previous content curation steps was carried out with clear and concise criteria and if they are related to the topic set by the teacher in the subject. The score of this activity was the sum of the scores of each section, and its contribution to the final mark of the subject was 15%. In addition, a high score in all sections indicated that the students were becoming content curators. Specifically, the results obtained in the sections \"ICT tools management\" and \"content curation\" evaluated the steps of the content curation methodology. To complete this analysis, questionnaire B was also used. The objective was to verify if the students had successfully linked the tools to each content curation step. Table 4 shows the mean scores obtained in each step of the content curation process. The final score obtained in the curation content index slightly exceeded 50% of the total score, so it can be said that the experience was satisfactory. However, the low scores in the _search_ and _sense making step_ indicate that these steps must be deeply developed. Regarding _search_ step, a low score (33.33) was obtained. This value shows that students do not use specific tools to search for information as it has been already observed in previous works [34]. Moreover, it indicates that students do not perform quality searches when they use generic and little specialized search engines. This procedure implies non-selective searches and generates large amounts of information. In addition, not using specific search engines can lead to obtaining information from non-verified sources instead of truthful and reliable information. On the other hand, the _select_ step stands out for having a high score (60.29). In this case, the students correctly understood the usefulness of the suggested tools as reported in previous studies by [PERSON] and [PERSON] [21; 34]. The score obtained in the _sense making_ step was also low (36.95), as it was the most complex step within content curation. Moreover, it was the more novel step for students and a low score was expected. _Sense Making_ involves creating content, adding value, and personalizing it, so it was a step that must be deeply developed. Content curation means \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Search** & **Select** & **Sense Making** & **Share** & **Content Curation Index** \\ \hline
33.33 & 60.29 & 36.95 & 69.56 & 53.53 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Content curation index and mean scores obtained in each step of the content curation process. Figure 7: Example of the groups’ results dissemination. more than simply linking to an article, because good content curators are trusted guides that add value to content [27]. Content curation needs to continuously discover new content and be insightful about what it is shared. It is important to think about adding comments, context, and information and removing irrelevant content. Thus, the proper development of this step would be closely related to skills such as critical thinking, the ability to be autonomous and have initiative, which are very important skills to be developed in higher education. Also, it is the least automated step as machines can add and provide an initial level of filtering, but only humans can actually curate [27].