Badges of achievement
Recognising skills and knowledge in the digital age
The distinction between academic credentials and specific, transferable skills is a perennially debated topic in education. Even with the quasi-standardisation resulting from the Bologna process, with modular programmes of interchangeable credits, well specified learning objectives/outcomes and ‘module descriptors,’ we’re still some way away from clearly spelling out what a particular graduate can do, especially when they are working in a field or career that is removed from their original undergraduate choice (that includes me, of course!!). Does the fact that someone scored the passing grade in a module or course mean that they have demonstrated capability in say, 40% of the specified learning outcomes, or does it mean that they can do each of them about 40% correct?!
Solutions to this, on the formal side, have typically been twofold. One: provide more detail of the student’s level of achievement (and capture ‘co-curricular’ experiences) in the supplementary documentation attached to the degree transcript itself (the Bologna ‘Diploma Supplement’ (under ‘any additional relevant information’), the UK Higher Education Achievement Report, etc). And, secondly, to identify and communicate a set of ‘Graduate Attribute’ statements which summarise of what a (successful) graduate of an institution’s degree programmes should be capable. The quality and utility of such Graduate Attributes, however, is highly variable and for many institutions the statements are at such a general and high level that they have little practical use. Furthermore, few institutions are claiming that all their graduates have these attributes, only that the most successful, most engaged students, may have had the opportunity to develop in this way.
So how might we improve things? Note that our concern here is not just about the needs of employers, but also, crucially, about the right of students themselves to understand what is expected of them, what they themselves can achieve and about setting aspirational but achievable goals for personal development. Specifying attributes and skills overtly, then, has an intrinsic educational merit and those who hold to the perception that such approaches are about the rise of neo-liberal economic models, where skills trump (if one can still use that word!) knowledge and values, may well only have been exposed to narrow expositions and instrumentalist policy statements. Yes they are about employability (and the associated language of entrepreneurship and innovation), but they can also be about learning to learn, about self-development, empowerment and building a collective sense of critical social engagement.
So given the limitations of these two approaches as they have tended to be implemented thus far (and there are many exceptions, it should be noted) in universities and formal education systems, what practical possibilities might there be for improving the situation?
An increasingly popular approach is that of Digital (Open, preferably) Badges. As those of us who have been working in this field for some time recognise, some people find the term ‘badges’ off-putting. It doesn’t quite have the gravitas one might associate with a formal programme of education or training. Or, the all too frequent focus on the graphical design aspects can sometimes obscure the underlying principles and make light of what is actually a substantive contribution to the education and credentials debate. For some, the discomfort is loosened, when badge is swapped with micro-credential.
Call them what you will, but essentially they are an electronic record of demonstrated achievement, where the criteria for their award is clearly spelled out and the learning captured is in a tightly defined area such as a particular skill at a particular level (e.g., capable of producing a short online video, using editing tools and simple camera). It is also becoming increasingly common to embed evidence for the award of the badge (e.g., the videos produced in that example). Standards for metadata, authentication of issuers and interoperability ensure that badges/micro-credentials can be robust measures of achievement which can supplement the broader academic achievement pertaining to a traditional degree programme.
Of course, badges are also highly effective in the informal learning context, but by infusing education systems with such tools, we have the opportunity to refresh our approach to curricular design, demonstrate the broader value of programmes, and by the same means also begin to tackle the issue of the professional development of teachers and those who support learning.
In the All Aboard national project in Ireland, we are using badges to capture the skills and knowledge acquired by learners (whether they be students, faculty or staff — we are all learners when it comes to new technologies) as they explore our ‘Metro Map’. (Each station is a subject with associated lessons.) A ‘toolkit’ for badge development, some recommendations for quality frameworks and implementations are all part of our ‘BadgePack’ which will be publicly released very soon (draft of Higher Education guidelines here).
We are also working with the National Forum for the Enhancement of Teaching & Learning, to use digital badges (and associated personal profiles/portfolios) for recording the continuing professional development of those who teach in higher education. In other words, using the technology to accredit skills development in all areas of professional practice (eg teaching methods, curricular design, research skills, leadership), not just digital skills.
We’ve had many requests from colleagues from other sectors of education and training, and other countries, to share some of our ideas and to work with them. We also currently engage with colleagues in the Badge Alliance, the Open Badge Network and other fora.
Contact us, if you wish to talk more about mapping digital skills, developing open badges and professional development.
