1

Open Digital Badges + ePortfolios:Searching for and Supporting Synergy

Daniel T. HickeyProfessor and Program CoordinatorLearning Sciences ProgramDirector, Participatory Assessment LabIndiana University

2

3

IU Open Badges Team Members

RebeccaItow

CathyTran

KaterinaSchenke

JamesWillis

Nate Otto

ChristineChow

JoshuaQuick

Cindy Cogswell

KirstinHelström

Suraj Uttamchandani

GinaHoward

4

Jim P., Jim G. & Jim Gee(My Three Uncles)

Jim Pellegrino

JimGreeno

JimGee

5

My Three Cousins

LorrieShepard

PamelaMoss

Randi Engle

6

7

Why Badges?• Badges contain specific claims of competency, achievement,

completion, etc.• Badges can contain evidence supporting those claims.

– The optional evidence field can contain links to additional evidence (e.g., artifacts) supporting those claims

• These claims and evidence can readily circulate in social networks, email, etc.– Thus they gain additional information including endorsements and

(potential) rejection.– Thus they can help potential earners find opportunities.

• Badges are interoperable and extensible.– Earners can curate and annotate their collections.– OBI Badges should be displayable in all future platforms

8

• MacArthur launches DML initiative in 2006

• P2PU and Mozilla define badges in 2010

• 2012-2014 Badges for Lifelong Learning Initiative

• 2012-2015 Badges DPD Project

• Credly and other startups start emerging ~2013

• Badge Alliance launched in 2014

• Open Badges in Higher Ed Project 2014-2016

9

The Promise of Digital Badges

10

Challenges for Digital Badges

11

The Evolving Badgescape• MacArthur’s $25M start up

& Project LRNG 2015• Badge Alliance

reorganization in 2016• LTI-compliant badges for

major LMSs• IMS Global Open Badge in

Ed Extensions• New JSON-LD (linked data)

standards• DML 2016 Competition

12

13

14

15

• Project Zero launches in 1967, portfolios in 1980s

• High-stakes K-12 portfolios rise and fall 1990-1995

• ePortfolios emerge in higher ed late 1990s

• Commercial platforms start emerging ~2000

• INCEPR in 2003, AAEEBL in 2009

• Cambridge et. al, 2009, Penny Light and Chen, 2011

• MCNRC/Catalyst in 2014

16

• Project Zero launches in 1967, portfolios in 1980s

• High-stakes K-12 portfolios rise and fall 1990-1995

• ePortfolios emerge in higher ed late 1990s

• Commercial platforms start emerging ~2000

• INCEPR in 2003, AAEEBL in 2009

• Cambridge et. al, 2009, Penny Light and Chen, 2011

• MCNRC/Catalyst in 2014

17

The Promise of ePortfolios• Puts learners in charge of learning and displaying• ePortfolio is the “common denominator” in the move

from teaching to learning– Abundance of knowledge– Knowledge is rapidly changing– Economy that demands documented competency– Dismal evidence of learning from legacy methods– Changing nature of college students

• Complements other trends in higher education– CBE, SRL, authentic assessment, personalization, self-pacing,

service learning, etc.

18

The Promise of e-Portfolios

19

Challenges for ePortfolios

20

21

Why Add Badges to ePortfolios?• Allow credit outside of formal credential context

– Give credit for things that are hard to grade• Can provide additional useful information

– Specific claims and detailed evidence – Context in which content was created– Standardize the inclusion of additional information without cluttering

eportfolios• May simplify the process of defining competencies• May offload summative credentialing functions

– Allows more formative and transformative functions• Can connect eportfolio content to competencies and grades

– Learners stack badge URLs in maps or gradebook• Can increase value of portfolio content by circulating independently

22

Claimsand

Evidence

23

ev·i·dence /ˈevədəns/

• the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid

• In education, evidence usually concerns claims about what someone learned and/or what they will be able to do in the future.

• Validity is a property of claims not assessments– Assessments can be reliable (but not valid)– Validity is an argument

24

Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (NCME/APA/AERA)

1999

19851966

2014

• Different functions of assessment– Summative vs. formative vs.

transformative.• Different types of evidence

– Behavior vs. cognition vs. participation.

• Different units of analysis– Practices vs. people vs. programs vs.

institutions.• Competing purposes create tensions

– Many unintended consequences– Focus on functions instead

25

Validity is Contentious

• Traditional Conception– Criterion, content, and construct-related evidence

• Modern “aspects of construct validity” from Messick– Content, substantive, structural, generalizability, external,

and consequential– Shepard, Moss, Hickey, and others argue that

consequences should be considered first.• Primary threats to validity– Construct under-representation– Construct-irrelevant variance

26

Badges as Boundary Objects• Boundary objects are particular kinds of

cultural tools (Star and Grisemer, 1989)– “both plastic enough to adapt to local needs

and constraints of the several parties employing them, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity across sites.

– “weakly structured in common use, and become strongly structured in individual-site use.

– “They may be abstract or concrete. They have different meanings in different social worlds but their structure is common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation.”

27

Credentials that Cross Boundaries(Moss, Girard, & Haniford, 2006)

• Six dimensions in which evidence crosses boundaries:1. Types of evidence (artifacts vs. scores)2. Explicitness of evidence (systematic?)3. Extent to which actors from the local context are

available in the new context4. Comprehensiveness of representation of local

context (foreground vs. background)5. The interpretive norms and routines that accompany

the evidence6. Roles of local and external actors in shaping

representations of practice.

28

Credentials that Cross Boundaries(Moss, Girard, & Haniford, 2006)

• “When evidence crosses boundaries, it brings far more than information.”– Cultural tools (e.g., artifacts & concepts).– Norms and routines mediate understanding and

(inter)action in sending and receiving contexts. • “Positions the different actors with different

authority, accountability, and agency for making decisions about how their practices are represented and how those representations should be interpreted and used”

29

• Students do meaningful work in ePortfolios– Including curricular and co-curricular– Artifacts are shared, discussed and endorsed.

• Students earn badges for the work– Highlights competencies and presents context– Competencies are shared, discussed, and endorsed

• Students “stack” badges into competency maps or gradebooks by simply pasting URLs– Instructors assign grades and private feedback– Information is FERPA-protected– Same badge can be in a gradebook or a competency map

The Ultimate Synergy:Badges + Portfolios + Competencies

30

31

Transforming ePortfolio Credentialing with Digital Badges

(Quick & Willis, 10:00)

In development

Credly integration

Pearson Acclaim integration

Interested

Open Badge Factory default

Credly integration

Interested

32

Balancing, Summative, Formative and Transformative ePortfolio Functions

(Hickey & Helstrom, 3:20)PLA DESIGN PRINCIPLES

Use public contexts give meaning to knowledge toolsPublically support and reward productive disciplinary engagementGrade artifacts through local reflectionsLet individuals assess their understanding privatelyMeasure aggregated achievement discreetly

33

2014 2016

Suspended None

Suspended None

Partial Existing

Implemented Existing

Implemented Thriving

Implemented Thriving

Status of 6 (of 29) Projects from 2012 Badges for Lifelong Learning Initiative

Where ePortfolios and Open Digital Badges Work Better (Hickey & Willis, 4:20)

34

Open Questions and Discussion• Are badges even going to endure?

– If it does not what micro-credentialing practice will endure• Is carpetbadging really a problem?

– Maybe “bro-badges” have a useful function– Democratization of credentialing?

• Are badges redundant with ePortfolio functions?• Might the OBI standards be “IMS-OBEE lite”• What is the financial model for badges?

– e.g., Achievery shut down in 2015– Registrars charge for copies, platforms and assessment firms charge for licenses.

• Sustainability of badges• Unintended consequences?• Other issues?