Designing and Developing Digital Credentials
Part 1: September 13, 2017 | 1:00–2:30 p.m. ET
Part 2: September 19, 2017 | 1:00–2:30 p.m. ET
Part 3: September 28, 2017 | 1:00–2:30 p.m. ET
https://events.educause.edu/eli/courses/2017/digging-into-badges-designing-and-developing-digital-credentials
Digital badges are receiving a growing amount of attention and are beginning to disrupt the norms of what it means to earn credit or be credentialed. Badges allow the sharing of evidence of skills and knowledge acquired through a wide range of life activity, at a granular level, and at a pace that keeps up with individuals who are always learning—even outside the classroom. As such, those not traditionally in the degree-granting realm—such as associations, online communities, and even employers—are now issuing “credit” for achievement they can uniquely recognize. At the same time, higher education institutions are rethinking the type and size of activities worthy of official recognition. From massive open online courses (MOOCs), service learning, faculty development, and campus events to new ways of structuring academic programs and courses or acknowledging granular or discrete skills and competencies these programs explore, there’s much for colleges and universities to consider in the wide open frontier called badging.
Learning Objectives
During this ELI course, participants will:
- Explore core concepts that define digital badges, as well as the benefits and use in learning-related contexts
- Understand the underlying technical aspects of digital badges and how they relate to each other and the broader landscape for each learner and issuing organization
- Critically review and analyze examples of the adoption of digital credentials both inside and outside higher education
- Identify and isolate specific programs, courses, or other campus or online activities that would be meaningfully supported and acknowledged with digital badges or credentials
- Consider the benefit of each minted badge or system to the earner, issuer, and observer
- Develop a badge constellation or taxonomy for their own project
- Consider forms of assessment suitable for evaluating badge earning
- Learn about design considerations around the visual aspects of badges
- Create a badge-issuing plan
- Issue badges
NOTE: Participants will be asked to complete assignments in between the course segments that support the learning objectives stated above and will receive feedback and constructive critique from course facilitators on how to improve and shape their work.
Jonathan Finkelstein, CEO, Credly
Jonathan Finkelstein is founder and CEO of Credly, creator of the Open Credit framework, and founder of the open source BadgeOS project. Together these platforms have enabled thousands of organizations to recognize, reward, and market skills and achievement. Previously, he was founder of LearningTimes and co-founder of HorizonLive (acquired by Blackboard), helping mission-driven organizations serve millions of learners through online programs and platforms. Finkelstein is author of Learning in Real Time (Wiley), contributing author to The Digital Museum, co-author of a report for the U.S. Department of Education on the potential for digital badges, and a frequent speaker on digital credentials, open badges, and the future of learning and workforce development. Recent speaking engagements have included programs at The White House, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Smithsonian, EDUCAUSE, IMS Global, Lumina Foundation, ASAE, and the Federal Reserve. Finkelstein is involved in several open standards initiatives, such as the IMS Global Learning Consortium, Badge Alliance, American Council on Education (ACE) Stackable Credentials Framework Advisory Group, and the Credential Registry. He graduated with honors from Harvard.
Susan Manning, University of Wisconsin-Stout
In addition to helping Credly clients design credential systems in formal and informal settings, Susan Manning comes from the teaching world. Presently she teaches for the University of Wisconsin at Stout, including courses in instructional design, universal design for learning, and the use of games for learning. Manning was recognized by the Sloan Consortium with the prestigious 2013 Excellence in Online Teaching Award. She has worked with a range of academic institutions to develop competency-based programs that integrate digital badges. Several of her publications specifically speak to digital badge systems; other work is centered on technology tools and online education.
EDUC-441 Mobile Learning Instructional Design
(3 cr.)
Repeatable for Credit: No
Mobile learning research, trends, instructional design strategies for curriculum integration and professional development.
EDUC-452 Universal Design for Learning
(2 cr.)
Repeatable for Credit: No
Instructional design strategies that support a wide range of learner differences; create barrier-free learning by applying universal design concepts.
+++++++++++++++++
more on badges in education in this IMS blog
https://blog.stcloudstate.edu/ims?s=badges
> Willard,
>
> The post 29.126 has been niggling at me for days. I originally want to
> reply with a simple observation that the appeal to storytelling is
> cast in such a way to avoid the complications of narration’s relation
> to narrative (the telling and the told; shown and said). But it was
> the theme of “borrowing” from one domain by another that leads me to
> recall a counter-narrative where there is no need to borrow between
> domains since the military-industrial-entertainment complex is one entity.
>
> I contend that fundamental to human interaction is narration:
> attentiveness to how stories are related. Stories are for sorting and
> storing. *Sometimes this soothes paranoia induced by too much
> linearity.*
>
> A while ago (1996), I explored recursivity and narrativity. My
> starting point was the ability to ask questions (and learn from one’s
> bodily reactions). The musings may or may not have military relevance.
> Judge for
> yourselves:
>
> <quote>
>
> Pedagogical situations are sensory. They are also interpersonal.
> Because they are sensory this makes even learning by oneself interpersonal.
> Egocentric speech is like a dialogue between the senses. In
> Vygotsky’s and Luria’s experiments, children placed in problem-solving
> situations that were slightly too difficult for them displayed egocentric speech.
> One could consider these as self-induced metadiscursive moments. The
> self in crisis will disassociate and one’s questionning becomes the
> object of a question.
>
> Not only is the human self as a metabeing both fracturable and
> affiliable in itself, it is also prone to narrativity. That is, the
> human self will project its self-making onto the world in order to
> generate stories from sequences and to break stories into recombinant
> sequences. Its operations on signs are material practices with consequences for world-making.
>
> The fracturable affiliable self calls for reproductive models suitable
> to the interactions of multi-sensate beings, models that render dyads
> dialectical, questionable, answerable. Narrativity understood
> dialectically does not merely mean making sequences or strings of
> events into stories but also stories into things, strung together for
> more stories. From such an understanding, emerge non-dyadic
> narratives of reproduction, narratives where a thing-born transforms
> itself into an event, comes to understand itself as a process.
>
> </quote>
>
> http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance/S6D.HTM
>
> Funny to consider that those remarks were based in a consideration of
> language and feedback mechanisms. Make me think that the storytelling
> as “potent form of emotional cueing” may be directed to undesired
> responses such as greater self-reflexivity. And depending on how they
> are parsed, Hollywood films can contribute to undesired responses
> including escape. 🙂
>
> Francois Lachance, Scholar-at-large
> http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~lachance
>
> to think is often to sort, to store and to shuffle: humble, embodied
> tasks
>
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2015, Humanist Discussion Group wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sharon Ghamari-Tabrizi, in “The Convergence of the Pentagon and
>> Hollywood” (Memory Bytes: History, Technology, and Digital Culture, ed.
>> Rabinovitz and Geil, 2004), describes in some detail the adoption by
>> the U.S. military of the entertainment industry’s storytelling
>> techniques implemented by means of simulation. This chapter follows
>> on from her excellent “Simulating the Unthinkable: Gaming Future War
>> in the 1950s and 1960s”, Social Studies of Science 30.2 (2000). In
>> the 2004 piece she describes a U.S. National Research Council
>> workshop in October 1996 at which representatives from film, video
>> game, entertainment and theme-parks came together with those from the
>> Department of Defense, academia and the defense industries. There is
>> much about this convergence that we might productively take an
>> interest in. Let me, however, highlight storytelling in particular.
>>
>> In a military context, Ghamari-Tabrizi points out, skilled
>> storytelling techniques are used to help participants in a VR
>> environment sense that they are in a real environment and behave
>> accordingly. Storytelling functions as a potent form of emotional
>> cueing that would seem to elicit the desired responses. But
>> especially interesting, I think, is the fact that “many conference
>> participants argued that the preferred mode of experiential immersion
>> in electronic media is not the unframed chaos of hypertext, but
>> old-fashioned storytelling.” She quotes Alex Seiden of Industrial
>> Light and Magic (note the date — 1996): “I’ve never seen a CD-ROM
>> that moved me the way a powerful film has. I’ve never visited a Web
>> page with great emotional impact. I contend that linear narrative is
>> the fundamental art form of humankind: the novel, the play, the film… these are the forms that define our cultural experience.”
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>> Yours,
>> WM
>> —
>> Willard McCarty (http://www.mccarty.org.uk/), Professor, Department of
>> Digital Humanities, King’s College London, and Digital Humanities
>> Research Group, University of Western Sydney
Turning Technophobia through Digital Storytelling
http://www.nmc.org/blog/turning-technophobia-through-digital-storytelling/
MOOC and Libraries
http://explore.tandfonline.com/content/bes/moocsandlibraries
New ACRL Discussion Group—Library Support for MOOCs
Libraries in the Time of MOOCs
http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/libraries-time-moocs
issues related to MOOCs, such as intellectual property rights, privacy issues, and state regulations.
MOOCs have arrived on the scene at a time when many institutions of higher learning are in extreme financial crisis
OCLC conference, “MOOCs and Libraries: Massive Opportunity or Overwhelming Challenge? http://www.oclc.org/research/events/2013/03-18.html
The MOOC movement might change this copyright-ownership contract between university and faculty.
Stephens, M. m., & Jones, K. L. (2014). MOOCs as LIS Professional Development Platforms: Evaluating and Refining SJSU’s First Not-for-Credit MOOC. Journal Of Education For Library & Information Science, 55(4), 345-361.
http://login.libproxy.stcloudstate.edu/login?qurl=http%3a%2f%2fsearch.ebscohost.com%2flogin.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26db%3dllf%26AN%3d99055676%26site%3deds-live%26scope%3dsite
xMOOCs. Using centralized learning platforms (e.g., Coursera),they emphasize individual learning usingautomated assessment tools.In contrast, cMOOCs stress the relationship between course content and a community of learners. Social learning, in thecase of cMOOCs, is emphasized through uses of distributed tools (e.g., a combination of a course site, student blogs, andsocial etworking sites) to build networks of knowledge and learners. Unlike their xMOOC counterparts, the role of an in istructor in a cMOOC is to be a “guide on the side,” a facilitator of the knowledge making process who uses connectivist learning theory (Siemens, 2004; Siemens,2012)
Learning 2.0 programs, also known as“23 Things,” have offered online technology-focused professional development for library staff and could be considered an early version of LIS-focused MOOCs (Stephens, 2013a). Utilizing concepts such as self-directed learning, play, and an emphasis on lifelong learning, these programs have been offered for individual libraries as well as consortial and state level iterations to reach thousands of library staff.
The course structure of the MOOCversion of the HL incorporated content updated from the SLIS course by the coinstructors. Ten modules were scheduled over a twelve-week “semester.” Students
could earn a certificate of completion, if they finished three of five artifact-based assignments of their choosing, in addition to blogging and participating in an end-of-course virtual symposium. The weekly schedule is available in Appendix A, and assignment descriptions are available in Appendix B
utilizing concepts such as self-directed learning, play, and an emphasis on lifelong learning, these programs have been offered for individual libraries as well as consortial and state level iterations to reach thousands of library staff. Benefits to staff include increased comfort with emerging technologies and an increased desire to continue learning (p. 348).
SPOC as the cousin of smartmobs (http://www.smartmobs.com/author/bryan/) and swarming (http://bwatwood.edublogs.org/2010/08/05/learning-swarms/)?… as per Bryan Alexander
Bryan Alexander forwarded the idea of swarming in education some 10 years go: synchronous online communication will break the brick-and-mortar classroom and must lead to offering a f2f class on a specific subject to “swarming” of interested students all around the globe around the specific subject. It was in an Educause article, which, of course, I cannot find now. The term comes from the 1999 riots in Seattle when protesters where calling each other on cells after the police hits them and were “swarming” to a different rally point.
Ah, there it is: http://www.educause.edu/ero/article/going-nomadic-mobile-learning-higher-education
—————-
Plamen Miltenoff, Ph.D., MLIS
From: Ewing, M Keith
Sent: Friday, September 27, 2013 11:55 AM
Subject: First MOOCs, now SPOCs
“Harvard plans to boldly go with ‘Spocs’”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24166247
SPOC = Small Private Online Course
Well, not so small and private—still large, but not thousands.
“The smaller class size will allow “much more rigorous assessment and greater validation of identity and that will be more closely tied to what kind of certification might be possible,” he [Prof Robert Lue] says.”
Keith Ewing
