Cit 2013 - Badging / Micro-credentialling
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Cit 2013 - Badging / Micro-credentialling

on

  • 241 views

Report on a graduate course in emerging technologies where students conducted peer reviews on web-based projects of classmates, on criteria OTHER THAN those of the instructor.

Report on a graduate course in emerging technologies where students conducted peer reviews on web-based projects of classmates, on criteria OTHER THAN those of the instructor.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
241
Views on SlideShare
241
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Cit 2013 - Badging / Micro-credentialling Cit 2013 - Badging / Micro-credentialling Presentation Transcript

  • BADGING / MICRO-CREDENTIALING –CLASSROOM PEER REVIEW,FACILITATED AND EXTENDED BYTECHNOLOGY“Badging” as a way to encourage review,ownership, professional-networking,lateral learning, & reflectionBy: Amy McQuigge (amy.mcquigge@esc.edu)& Eileen O’Connor (eileen.oconnor@esc.edu)SUNY CIT 2013 Empire State College
  • Agenda Introduction to course where badging wasimplemented Overview of the badging concept &approaches Data and findings within the course Concluding comments / Q&A
  • Badging – within an online course• Course & the student population– Learning with Emerging Technologies: Theory & Practice– Working adults take this introductory master’s courses withinthe Masters of Arts in Learning & Emerging Technology• The multiple purposes for badging – (many follow-upstudies are possible for analyzing the results)– Peer review & awarding; extending course evaluation– “Lateral” learning; encouraging review & reflection; buildingcommunity & understanding– Modeling an emerging approach that these students might usein their work• Designing learning systems that use emerging tech• Having students consider further applications
  • DiscussionboardsMedia postingsw/ d-boardsSecond Life – wd-board follow-upBadge votingBlog sharing onlearningResearch /resource findingsvia Google DriveFinalpresentation /reviewCourse interactions –community highly prizedcourse objective; acollaborative project in thelast module
  • The “badging” components & processwithin each module
  • The integration of the badge process• Web-accessible assignments geared to courserequirements :– additional criteria were posted for the badging;– Informal headings / descriptive / “stylistically” reinforcing thenon-graded aspect of these peer-given awards;– Additional category of creative / inventive was created forbadge 4• Postings for the class– after votes were tallied results were emailed & put in class blog– final presentation of summary badges in a virtual meeting• The peer-voting was within Google Forms-- Data was then gathered; results were sharedanonymously by instructor• Formal presentation of badges in Second Life atend of course
  • Instructor review vs. peer reviewAssessmentpointsInstructor (forcredit)Formal assessment withcriteria; aligned w/course objectivesReportsAnnotatedBibliographiesSandbox w/technologies w/rubricsPeers (for badge& not credit)5 badges – peer reviewopportunities; encouragingcreativityHolistic criteriaInformalcategoriesOpen ended
  • Example of the instructor rubric – specific & detailed;focus is on sandbox-level skills (not design orinstruction of e-mediated environment)
  • Badge criteria – holistic & informal;employed a deliberately different tone,language, & expectationsBADGE SCALE – Prezi / Presentation; Website; YouTube; YouTubeNo go (1) Pewter (2) Bronze (3) Gold (4)Won’t even make thegrade for theassignments minimumcriteriaMinimally acceptablefor the assignment butnothing noteworthy inthis aspectInteresting & useful;solid display ofexpertise on thiscriteriaWow, I am learning andtaking notes here – agreat job; I’ll have myfriends visit here too-- Used the scale above for the first 3 badges; added “willingness to try new things” tothe categories above for Badge 4 (Facebook)-- Wanting to encourage students to think outside the box; some concerns that theevaluation was not “fair” to the different skill levels
  • All badge-prompts encouraged new areas of thinking
  • Created in Google Drive Forms –summarized and tallied
  • TOTAL COUNT OF BADGE VOTES CASTWITHIN THE 4 INDIVIDUAL AREAS• The course asked for 3 reviews minimum; 9 students in the course; thusthere should be at least 27 votes per badge• Badge 2 – some student-participation issuesTOTAL COUNT OF BADGE VOTERS BY THE DIFFERENT AREASBADGE 1 BADGE 2 BADGE 3 BADGE 4Prezi/PPT Website YouTube Facebook51 22 33 28
  • Average votes per student per category(Cat 2 & 3 have multiple criteria)ValuesRow LabelsAverage ofaestheticsAverage ofCategory2Average ofCategory3Average of “trynew” categorytotalaverageStd1 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.7 3.1Std2 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.6Std3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.3Std4 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.0 3.0Std5 3.5 3.6 3.5 4.0 3.7Std6 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.0 2.9Std7 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.6Std8 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.2Std9 2.5 2.4 2.4 3.0 2.6Grand Total 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
  • Std1 Std2 Std3 Std4 Std5 Std6 Std7 Std8 Std9Average of aes 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.5Average of cat2 3.1 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.1 2.4Average of cat3 3.1 3.7 3.3 2.8 3.5 2.9 3.6 3.3 2.4Average of try new 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.8 3.0 3.00.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5AverageVotes(4highestvalue)Student Average Votes per Category (several criteria in Cat 2 & 3)“Try new features”category was onlyadded in the 4thbadge event
  • Std1 Std2 Std3 Std4 Std5 Std6 Std7 Std8 Std9Average of aes 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.5Average of cat2 3.1 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.1 2.4Average of cat3 3.1 3.7 3.3 2.8 3.5 2.9 3.6 3.3 2.4Average of try new 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.8 3.0 3.00.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.5AxisTitleAverage of the votes for each student by category (cat 2 & 3have multiple criteria) – results aligned w/ prior studentbackground & experienceStd 6 & 9 were from more“traditional” institutions &environments; Std 5 & 2 had priorexperience with more innovative tech
  • Comparison – instructor vs. peer ranking, mindful thatthe criteria are different for both deliberationsInstructor ranking, on “regular”course assignments & criteriafor the entire course Student # Peer ranking1 Std8 42 Std2 22 Std3 32 Std6 73 Std5 13 Std9 84 Std4 64 Std7 25 Std1 5Note: instructor ranking would be similar to students on the criteriaconsidered; however, the peer assessment was on criteria beyond thecourse requirements
  • Conclusions• Students participation was often beyond theminimum requirements;• Students were very collegially engaged, however,the entire course reinforces this approach –further study needed to isolate the role of thebadging process itself;• Peer review mapped quite closely to instructorreview & ranking;• Using peer review (with badging) allowed forcourse & learning expansion in informal ways
  • Considerations for adaptation / further study• Adapt concept & process to your needs– Consider how to integrate badges to encourage more examination & reflectionwithin your courses• You will still need to work beyond the LMS – this is extra step; however, integrating web2.0 technologies often means extending beyond standard LMS features• Emphasize ad explain the differences between peer review vs. instructor review• Consider course objectives, audience, and the audience expectation – but don’t be afraidto integrate and evaluate new approaches for reflection and community building– Consider the level of granularity you need in the badges– Introduce badges early and complete a “cycle” (through to picking-up thebadges) within the course• When to issue the badges – can be associated with a course / motivational – engagementfactors• For external presentation of works, perhaps• Consider how to use badges – as rewards? as competitions? to encouragereflection & review?• Consider when to distribute badges – during the course or at the end?• Badges can address emerging understandings about learning:– Is professional interactions and lateral learning important?– Is additional, peer-level credentialing of value for learning within a course?