Successfully reported this slideshow.
Your SlideShare is downloading. ×

Cit 2013 - Badging / Micro-credentialling

Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Ad
Loading in …3
×

Check these out next

1 of 18 Ad
Advertisement

More Related Content

Advertisement

Similar to Cit 2013 - Badging / Micro-credentialling (20)

More from Eileen O'Connor (20)

Advertisement

Recently uploaded (20)

Cit 2013 - Badging / Micro-credentialling

  1. 1. BADGING / MICRO-CREDENTIALING – CLASSROOM PEER REVIEW, FACILITATED AND EXTENDED BY TECHNOLOGY “Badging” as a way to encourage review, ownership, professional-networking, lateral learning, & reflection By: Amy McQuigge (amy.mcquigge@esc.edu) & Eileen O’Connor (eileen.oconnor@esc.edu) SUNY CIT 2013 Empire State College
  2. 2. Agenda  Introduction to course where badging was implemented  Overview of the badging concept & approaches  Data and findings within the course  Concluding comments / Q&A
  3. 3. Badging – within an online course • Course & the student population – Learning with Emerging Technologies: Theory & Practice – Working adults take this introductory master’s courses within the Masters of Arts in Learning & Emerging Technology • The multiple purposes for badging – (many follow-up studies are possible for analyzing the results) – Peer review & awarding; extending course evaluation – “Lateral” learning; encouraging review & reflection; building community & understanding – Modeling an emerging approach that these students might use in their work • Designing learning systems that use emerging tech • Having students consider further applications
  4. 4. Discussion boards Media postings w/ d-boards Second Life – w d-board follow- up Badge voting Blog sharing on learning Research / resource findings via Google Drive Final presentation / review Course interactions – community highly prized course objective; a collaborative project in the last module
  5. 5. The “badging” components & process within each module
  6. 6. The integration of the badge process • Web-accessible assignments geared to course requirements : – additional criteria were posted for the badging; – Informal headings / descriptive / “stylistically” reinforcing the non-graded aspect of these peer-given awards; – Additional category of creative / inventive was created for badge 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 shared anonymously by instructor • Formal presentation of badges in Second Life at end of course
  7. 7. Instructor review vs. peer review Assessment points Instructor (for credit) Formal assessment with criteria; aligned w/ course objectives Reports Annotated Bibliographies Sandbox w/ technologies w/ rubrics Peers (for badge & not credit) 5 badges – peer review opportunities; encouraging creativity Holistic criteria Informal categories Open ended
  8. 8. Example of the instructor rubric – specific & detailed; focus is on sandbox-level skills (not design or instruction of e-mediated environment)
  9. 9. Badge criteria – holistic & informal; employed a deliberately different tone, language, & expectations BADGE SCALE – Prezi / Presentation; Website; YouTube; YouTube No go (1) Pewter (2) Bronze (3) Gold (4) Won’t even make the grade for the assignments minimum criteria Minimally acceptable for the assignment but nothing noteworthy in this aspect Interesting & useful; solid display of expertise on this criteria Wow, I am learning and taking notes here – a great job; I’ll have my friends visit here too -- Used the scale above for the first 3 badges; added “willingness to try new things” to the categories above for Badge 4 (Facebook) -- Wanting to encourage students to think outside the box; some concerns that the evaluation was not “fair” to the different skill levels
  10. 10. All badge-prompts encouraged new areas of thinking
  11. 11. Created in Google Drive Forms – summarized and tallied
  12. 12. TOTAL COUNT OF BADGE VOTES CAST WITHIN THE 4 INDIVIDUAL AREAS • The course asked for 3 reviews minimum; 9 students in the course; thus there should be at least 27 votes per badge • Badge 2 – some student-participation issues TOTAL COUNT OF BADGE VOTERS BY THE DIFFERENT AREAS BADGE 1 BADGE 2 BADGE 3 BADGE 4 Prezi/PPT Website YouTube Facebook 51 22 33 28
  13. 13. Average votes per student per category (Cat 2 & 3 have multiple criteria) Values Row Labels Average of aesthetics Average of Category2 Average of Category3 Average of “try new” category total average Std1 3.3 3.1 3.1 2.7 3.1 Std2 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.6 Std3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.3 Std4 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.0 3.0 Std5 3.5 3.6 3.5 4.0 3.7 Std6 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.0 2.9 Std7 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.8 3.6 Std8 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.0 3.2 Std9 2.5 2.4 2.4 3.0 2.6 Grand Total 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.2
  14. 14. Std1 Std2 Std3 Std4 Std5 Std6 Std7 Std8 Std9 Average of aes 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.5 Average of cat2 3.1 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.1 2.4 Average of cat3 3.1 3.7 3.3 2.8 3.5 2.9 3.6 3.3 2.4 Average of try new 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.8 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 AverageVotes(4highestvalue) Student Average Votes per Category (several criteria in Cat 2 & 3) “Try new features” category was only added in the 4th badge event
  15. 15. Std1 Std2 Std3 Std4 Std5 Std6 Std7 Std8 Std9 Average of aes 3.3 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.4 2.5 Average of cat2 3.1 3.5 3.4 3.2 3.6 3.3 3.5 3.1 2.4 Average of cat3 3.1 3.7 3.3 2.8 3.5 2.9 3.6 3.3 2.4 Average of try new 2.7 3.5 3.2 3.0 4.0 2.0 3.8 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 AxisTitle Average of the votes for each student by category (cat 2 & 3 have multiple criteria) – results aligned w/ prior student background & experience Std 6 & 9 were from more “traditional” institutions & environments; Std 5 & 2 had prior experience with more innovative tech
  16. 16. Comparison – instructor vs. peer ranking, mindful that the criteria are different for both deliberations Instructor ranking, on “regular” course assignments & criteria for the entire course Student # Peer ranking 1 Std8 4 2 Std2 2 2 Std3 3 2 Std6 7 3 Std5 1 3 Std9 8 4 Std4 6 4 Std7 2 5 Std1 5 Note: instructor ranking would be similar to students on the criteria considered; however, the peer assessment was on criteria beyond the course requirements
  17. 17. Conclusions • Students participation was often beyond the minimum requirements; • Students were very collegially engaged, however, the entire course reinforces this approach – further study needed to isolate the role of the badging process itself; • Peer review mapped quite closely to instructor review & ranking; • Using peer review (with badging) allowed for course & learning expansion in informal ways
  18. 18. Considerations for adaptation / further study • Adapt concept & process to your needs – Consider how to integrate badges to encourage more examination & reflection within your courses • You will still need to work beyond the LMS – this is extra step; however, integrating web 2.0 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 afraid to 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 the badges) within the course • When to issue the badges – can be associated with a course / motivational – engagement factors • For external presentation of works, perhaps • Consider how to use badges – as rewards? as competitions? to encourage reflection & 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?

×