by Katerina Schenke
This post describes a meeting at the National Science Foundation where sixty leaders in education and research from around the country gathered to discuss digital badges and education. Three of use presented the initial set of design principles from the Design Principles Documentation Project.
Monday April 1st
we travelled to the NSF headquarters in Arlington, VA. There, Michelle Riconscente
and Margaret Honey from the New York Hall of Science hosted a meeting with an
impressive list of attendees. STEM educators, members from after school
programs, researchers, professors from all different disciplines (computer
science, educational psychology, learning sciences) among others met to discuss
the current and future research surrounding badges.
Rebecca Itow, Cathy Tran,
and I were invited to attend as members of the Badge Design Principles
Documentation project and had been asked to serve as official note takers of the
meeting. We ended up doing Dan Hickey’s presentation on the project and about
digital badges research because Dan instead had to attend to a death in his
family. Our presentation went over
well and the audience was very interested in the initial set of design
principles emerging across the 30 projects funded by the Gates/MacArthur Badges
for Lifelong Learning initiative
Along with discussions about
the logistical concerns about the use badges such as how to manage these
various systems (Erin Knight from Mozilla), on-the-ground depictions of badge
systems (Alejandro Molina from the Providence After School Alliance, Marc Lesser from MOUSE, Inc, and Akili Lee from the DigitalYouth Network, just to name a few), and the potential for badges to optimize
student learning (Barry Fishman).
We candidly spoke about some concerns about badging such as “what is the
life expectancy of a badge” (Avi Kaplan), and “what are some
of the challenges and what are some of the insights as a result of this work?”
(Michelle Riconscente).
As someone who
is interested in what badges can do for student motivation, a question from
Learning Sciences legend Allen Collins really stood out:
“Badges is a low stakes enterprise but at the other
end we think about using badges to make decisions like colleges, employers
which are kind of high stakes decisions and we kind of know that when you put
high stakes on things it distorts the way the system works. It leads to
cheating and all of that. So the question is how can the badge community
resolve this tension?”
Given that some of the badges
efforts are already planning for high-stakes uses, this is a huge
question. Unlike course grades and
diplomas, digital badges contain detailed evidence and hyperlinks to more
evidence about the issuer and what the individual did to earn the badge. While this won’t prevent these
concerns, it will certainly cause them to unfold differently. Should we resist turning
badge systems into high stakes pursuits? Is there a way to design these systems
in such a way where badges contain outside value to the learner yet still
emphasize the learning process within the badge system?
Comments? Thoughts?
No comments:
Post a Comment