Making universal access to education compatible with different paths of learning is a great challenge of the last century. Technology has provided solutions in access to information, communication or collaborative work.

In this regard, the problem that gives rise to this communication responds to the need to address individual differences in learning processes (Liu and Ot, 2017), and, at the same time, make it compatible with the accreditation mechanisms used in the systems formal education of the present (Rivera-Vargas, Sancho and Sánchez, 2017). The problem, then, is centered on how to evaluate different learnings to different students while establishing some type of criterion that allows to justify the accreditation that the student has achieved certain competences, at a certain level.

It is, on the one hand, a practical problem. If the students follow different learning pathways, how can the teacher evaluate all of them? This problem is not oriented so much to a summative evaluation but to the formative evaluation, to the monitoring of the student day by day. It does not seem that this problem has been sufficiently solved in the last fifty years (Selwyn, 2016).

The impossibility of carrying out personalized follow-up even for groups that are not excessively large students has led to the development of "machine-managed" solutions such as TEALE (Technology enhanced Adaptive learning environments). In them, computer systems, using algorithms, and from the information gathered in large samples of students, evaluates the work of the student, and determines the itinerary to follow. But these systems, conceptually based on an associationist vision of learning, presented serious limitations for more complex learning. In addition, there are gaps in the social dimension of learning (Bartolomé, Castañeda and Adell, 2018).

The Edublocs project, therefore, thanks to the incorporation of the Blockchain technology, tries to develop a training model that allows for different itineraries of the students, but in which the four actors that can best participate, at different times and in different ways, intervene. , guide on that itinerary. They are the actors of the evaluation of the subject: the trainer, the subject himself, his colleagues and the automatic systems. Parallel to this, emerges the need to offer the student diverse and exhaustive scenarios, activities and resources to favor their learning.

Precisely, this proposal proposes to present the preliminary results of a project that is implemented in the degree of Social Education of the University of Barcelona. The objective of the Edublocs project is to build learning itineraries for the student body, and to manage the evaluation processes through the use of Blockchain (Bartolomé, Lindin & Rivera-Vargas, 2018).

The Edublocs project is in full implementation phase during its first year. In order to analyze this initial process, an Evaluation of Process (Sapag & Sapag, 2000) has been carried out in order to make improvements that may favor the sustainability of the initiative. The results have an immediate interest in the process in order to redirect it if necessary, while providing us with information that is part of the general validation of the project. The design and implementation of the Edublocs initiative entails the possibility of collecting information from the students throughout the entire process. For this, the delivery of CAD to OA is accompanied by a questionnaire in which various aspects are answered, but above all with regard to how their own learning process has been (Bland & Atweh, 2007). Thus, the project seeks to have a complementary function as an enhancer of the self-regulating competence of learning (Bartolomé, Lindín & Rivera-Vargas, 2018). This process evaluation corresponds to the first half of the course, and responds to these two specific objectives: - To know the perception of students about OA. - To know how the process of student learning has been carried out in the realization of objects. In the framework of the process evaluation that has been carried out, two information collection instruments have been used. For one year, a student assessment questionnaire, and in parallel to this, individual active interviews have been conducted with the teachers involved in this initial experience. This triangulation exercise has been made in order to relate and at the same time complement both visions in order to try to know in its broadest dimension, the transformations and adaptations that take place during the implementation process (Kemmis, McTaggart & Nixon, 2013). In relation to the questionnaire, as we have mentioned, it has been divided into three dimensions. - Perception of students before the realization of objects - Process of learning and autonomy - General reflections on the experience In relation to the analysis of active individual participants, each one of the interviewees' manifestations has been grouped into the four categories that guided the interview, generating in this way, a common and representative discourse of the teachers on each one. In each of these groups, we have selected some key phrases that have been used in this article to give consistency and clarity to the presentation of the results that will be presented.

The Evaluation of Process that we have carried out of the implementation of the Edublocs project has allowed us to identify a set of significant elements that will surely be very useful in order to seek sustainability. By way of general conclusions, the experience with some elements of design and experimental execution in formal university contexts during this course, has allowed us to obtain important indications on viability and relevance of its use in education. These, along with the explanation and justification of the applicability context, will be exposed in the broad development of the article Finally, it will be necessary to collect more information, once the course is finished, about the management that the student has done on their evaluation. Particularly, on how Blockchain allows to know the evaluation by individual objects and of global form with respect to all the realized objects, as much of a student as of this student in relation to the group.

Bartolomé, A., Castañeda, L. & Adell, J. (2018), Personalization in educational technology: the absence of underlying pedagogies. Interna tional Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(14), 1-17. doi: http://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-018-0095-0 Bartolomé, A., Lindin, C. & Rivera-Vargas, P. (2018). Management of learning programs Customized using block chains. In A. Bartolomé & JM del Moral (eds), Blockchain in Education: chains breaking molds (pp. 141-182). Barcelona: LMI, Transmedia XXI Collection. Kemmis, S., McTaggart, R. & Nixon, R. (2013). The action research planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Geelong: Springer Science and Business Media. Liu, M., Kang, J., Zou, W., Lee, H., Pan, Z. & Corliss, S. (2017). Using Data to Understand How to Better Design Adaptive Learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 22 (3), 271-298. Retrieved from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s107 58-017-9326-z Rivera-Vargas, P., Sancho-Gil, JM & Sánchez, JA (2017). The limits of disruption in the academic order. The DIY culture in the university. Education Pages, 10 (2), 127-142. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.22235/pe.v10i2.1428 Sapag, N. & Sapag, R. (2000). Preparation and evaluation of projects. DF Mexico: McGraw Hill. Selwyn, N. (2016). Is technology good for education? Hoboken (NJ): UK: John Wiley & Sons