Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

AAEEBL Regional Meeting 2016 Keynote

497 views

Published on

This is the keynote address from the 2016 midwest regional meeting of the Association for Authentic, Experiential, and Evidence Based Learning at Notre Dame University on May 12

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

AAEEBL Regional Meeting 2016 Keynote

  1. 1. Daniel T. Hickey Professor and Program Coordinator Learning Sciences Program Director, Participatory Assessment Lab Indiana University 1
  2. 2. 2
  3. 3. Rebecca Itow Cathy Tran Katerina Schenke James Willis Nate Otto Christine Chow Joshua Quick Cindy Cogswell Kirstin Helström Suraj Uttamchandani Gina Howard 3
  4. 4. Jim P., Jim G. & Jim Gee (My Three Uncles) 4 Jim Pellegrino Jim Greeno Jim Gee
  5. 5. My Three Cousins Lorrie Shepard Pamela Moss Randi Engle 5
  6. 6. 6
  7. 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 7
  8. 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 8
  9. 9. The Promise of Digital Badges 9
  10. 10. Challenges for Digital Badges 10
  11. 11. • 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 Competition11
  12. 12. 12
  13. 13. 13
  14. 14. 14
  15. 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 201415
  16. 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 201416
  17. 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. 17
  18. 18. The Promise of e-Portfolios 18
  19. 19. Challenges for ePortfolios 19
  20. 20. 20
  21. 21. • 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 21
  22. 22. Claims and Evidence 22
  23. 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 23
  24. 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 24
  25. 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 25
  26. 26. • 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.”26
  27. 27. • 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 context 4. Comprehensiveness of representation of local context (foreground vs. background) 5. The interpretive norms and routines that accompany the evidence 6. Roles of local and external actors in shaping representations of practice. 27
  28. 28. • “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” 28
  29. 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 29
  30. 30. 30
  31. 31. In development Credly integration Pearson Acclaim integration Interested Open Badge Factory default Credly integration Interested 31
  32. 32. PLA DESIGN PRINCIPLES Use public contexts give meaning to knowledge tools Publically support and reward productive disciplinary engagement Grade artifacts through local reflections Let individuals assess their understanding privately Measure aggregated achievement discreetly 32
  33. 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 33
  34. 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? 34

×