What do people think of this a s a set of badges for this seminar series?
- Learner badge - person introduces themselves to the group via the discussion forum and contributes to a couple of discussion threads. Mostly, they could be considered lurkers (much can be learned through lurking)
- Participant badge - person introduces themselves to the group via the discussion forum and actively contributes to 7 of the 12 primary discussion threads, also participates in one of the two lunch-and-learn sessions.
- Contributor badge- does everything the participant does with the addition of contributing;
- by designing badge images
- creating a badge system design for another curriculum
- blogs about their participation in this seminar series
- other creative endeavours regarding digital badges
This seems like a good, basic set of badges for a seminar like this... The names are accurate, descriptive, & easy to understand. I think they capture the range of involvement we would expect or hope for when we invite others to an educational seminar; unless we want to add one more for "moderator". Who knows -- this may even trigger a whole SCoPE series of badges ;-)
Thanks, I am glad you like the set of badges. I wanted them to be accurate, descriptive, & easy to understand. Thanks for the endorsement...
One of the questions which falls out of this is if a person meets all the criteria for the contributor badge, will this also mean they are issued all three badges? For they will have fullfilled the criteria for all three...
Yes, I would think a moderator badge would also be good for SCoPE to offer... let's hope this event triggers a small collection of badges made available by SCoPE and etug.
HI Peter -
I understand your system and it seems clear and easy to use. Thanks!
This is a great chart about "Seven Degrees of Connectedness"- should you wish to take these particular "badge descriptions" a step further:
By Lucier, Branigan-Pope and Rosenthal-Tolisano (2012)
Retrieved Dec1, 2012 from http://thecleversheep.blogspot.ca/2012/06/seven-degrees-of-connectedness_06.html
Thanks for sharing this, Verena. This looks quite interesting.
Like he said. Thanks!
Like he said. Thanks!
I added myself to the subscription list as there is lots to learn about in that blog!
I thought your blog post was interesting, Peter, and decided to reply here for potential discussion with our little learning community we have at SCoPE.
I am not sure that a learner = a lurker, which is how I am reading the first level (goodness, suddenly there are levels of learning, as if all learning needs to be externally quantifiable). Perhaps this can be tempered to express that personal learning is wonderful, but for it to be seen as something other than lurking (where others in the learning group cannot see or otherwise experience any of its happening) then there needs to be some external sign or expression of it (which would then lead to Participant).
Again, the Participant badge is a nice idea, but it seems to require a real-time involvement that seems to be at odds with an asynchronous discussion (and also seems focused on the facilitator's timezone that may not work with work or sleep or anything else in a global community) and otherwise privilege real-time discussion (which is not even required as written now, only showing up and "participating,' whatever that means) over a rich threaded discussion and such.
Does Contributor include all 4 of those items or only 1? Yes, this leads to a legalism that make "learning rubrics" a series of check marks that try to approximate internal development and learning, though in turn are challenging to be crystal clear while still being open to the wonder of transformative and other unexpected learning possibilities.
No, I am not trying to play the advocatus diaboli, but as I have to use rubrics in one of my courses (and have had to had this minute splitting of hairs discussions with students that I prefer to simply toss them) I want to see flex how they can be used if they are chosen to be used, as my experience is that they often lead to problems later on if they are too prescriptive.
Like Jeffrey, I experienced some discomfort as I read the description of Learner. I have learned a lot from lurking in past SCOPE discussions and I value the opportunity to browse and contemplate. As there is no way to really determine the quality or quantity of my browsing and reflection (at least not within the discussion forum), I think the only thing the badge can signify is that I am present during the event. Perhaps a more honest title would be "Lurker" as much as I dislike the term. And I would question the value of such a badge. If the point of this badge is just to prove I was there, who cares? If I haven't demonstrated some level of engagement in a discussion topic, why would you even bother to issue me a badge? Just give me a happy face symbol or something.
On to the next two - I like these more. I'm a fan of being clear about the expectations linked to badges. A minor concern with the Participant badge is again similar to Jeffrey's: why is learning linked to synchronous attendance at a web event? If participation is only attendance, then lurking learning could be measured by machine (number of times I logged into the discussion or opened a discussion thread). But I don't believe just being there indicates any learning (although some of the students I have taught seemed to think so)
I really like the Contributor badge because it has a concrete outcome. My suggestion would be that you should split this badge somehow. And I have a minor concern with this one too! To my mind, designing a badge image (while useful to the group as a whole) doesn't indicate that I have grasped any of the concepts or thought deeply about any of the issues discussed in the forum. The 2, 3, 4 items do (could?) demonstrate engagement with the topic and some level of learning.
What about ‘Observer” or ‘Listener’ .. I do
think there is value in having your status as a ‘watcher / lurker / listener /
observer ‘ acknowledged and the ‘earning’ of a badge at this first level may positively
re-enforce the experience and actually encourage a posting -
Interesting about listener or watcher, perhaps it is a basic level of one who engage in active reflection.
Anything but lurker, a term that just has a "dirty old man in a raincoat" feel to it. One who reads and thinks is active and does reflect on it, even if they do not engage anybody else.
I find the word "listener" appropriate and respectful.
"Lurker" sounds too much like a creepy criminal.
I like "listener" better than "lurker" for sure. I was thinking about the term "observer" - to capture the sense of reading, listening, watching?
The term in actual universities is 'audit'. That's probably what I would recommend.
I would caution against selecting or rejecting terms based on connotations, because these are really culturally specific. For example, for me the term 'lurker' doesn't carry the negative sense it obviously does for many people.
I know that they use 'audit' in universities and in a sense it works because the prof sees the person. In the on-line world where your presence doesn't have to be made known to anyone - I think that is where lurker came into being (and not in negative sense). Personally lurker works better for me than spectator since a spectator usually has bought into the process i.e. spectators at a sporting event.
'Active Listener' ? - The issue of 'participation' (ie doing a post) is interesting because it is not always 'shyness' etc that holds people back - sometimes it is just being time poor. The 'like' button is one feature Facebook does really well. It is easy and fast to review what others are saying and hit the like button (which indicates yes I agree also shows I did read this / actively listen / consider this) and the then the ability to just make a comment - "we do that here too" or even 'interesting I'll look that up'. Also there isn't an automatic assumption that a comment on facebook will be as 'intense' (?) as one on a fourm like this ... just something else to consider :)
Those three terms do capture it...I still like listener, but
I think that is because I originally was a counselor and
have done some mediation so I think of "listening" as
"warmly attentive" while a think of observor as "coldly
analytical" listeners pay attention and probably
integrate ideas into their own thinking and acting...
observors keep their distance...but the difference may
just be subjective on my part or based on professional
prejudices that have become part of me. :-)
Sylvia, these are the challenges of using rubrics--they need to be so specific that people cannot argue out of them, but general enough to include elements that were not previously considered.
I like the three step badges but my lack of understanding of the badge system leaves me out of three I would think unless this forum is going to provide a step-by-step process?
On another note, I am surprised on how this forum has taken off - so great is the interest!
During this seminar series we will be going over the step-by-step process of earning a badge. So stay with us... we need you here!
Hope I won't have missed the point here - as I am only just catching up on the forum posts - but what concerns me about the badges suggested is the focus on levels of participation rather than on 'quality' of contribution. I can imagine a scenario (in fact have experienced this scenario) where a person could make one contribution of such significance that it could have a significant impact on the 'course', on others' learning and on their own learning.
Hope this makes sense. Will now go and introduce myself :-)
And we have all likely been there where people have not contributed anything of "quality" so just being there is enough? The two extremes. I can argue either side since I have been a "lurker" in the online forums being a novice or newbie.
I like the idea of the three badge system - like others I prefer the term listener to lurker Much can be learned by just listening and it should be possible to receive credit for attendance alone but then there should be further badges for demonstrated learning and maybe an additional star for an contribution of exceptional quality or originality
In the simple badge system described above I feel some friction about quantifying engagement as in "actively contributes to 7 of the 12 primary discussion threads". I know that many uni courses count how many posts a student makes as a part of simple rubric for engagement but how effective is this? Dialogue is such a qulaitative thing it seems not enough to just count posts. What does "actively contributes" mean in this count? Writes 10 words? Writes a message in response to others? Writes a message that attracts responses? Opens a new topic? There is just too much left to interpretation in things like this and gamification in my experience needs to be readily transparent to users to be effective.
I am not just criticising here as these are issues I am struggling with in my own project work gamifyinging a teacher PD community experience. We are working on peer review, social gifitng and the building of evidence pages of reflection and learning as ways to raise the bar for badges. Early badges can be simple quantifiable tasks but later, for the badges to be part of your identity, a human response/reflection/review is required in granting them. Do you agree?
Apologies for typos - was dashing off some thoughts in my lunch break ;-)
Completely agree with your thinking here. And I am glad you have "challenged" my approach. I see active contribution aligns with "active learning" where the learners take some responsibility and ownership of their learning. The idea of gamification in a PD based free online seminar just seems so wrong to me...
If you have a suggestion for how we should peer-assess for the participation badge I would love to explore this idea further...
It seems that there has been a lot of discussion about this, though far from consensus. While I don't think consensus is particularly beneficial in teaching or learning, has this question / issue been resolved?
Jeffrey: know enough about what I might be agreeing with or arguing against, I'd like to sit on the fence and say I'll be guided by those more knowledgeable than I (which is the majority). Chris
Definitely agree with you Jeffrey that there isn't a need for consensus in this case, but I think the conversation is really important to the legitimacy of badges generally. Having robust discussion about how to assess those who want to earn a badge, and resulting clear assessment criteria is one way I think badges will become more legitimate. If we think there is value to issuing badges to recognize work done using open resources for example, we need a way of determining just what the badge signifies. In the case of something like PLAR for admission into an academic program, or for hiring a potential employee, understanding the skill set is key.
Mary, you expressed it so well; thanks for helping to move this forward.
Part of what I am interested in (as this topic has me stuck and questioning, while a number of the more recent tasks are asking for things I just cannot contribute) is that this thread started out as a topic of badges for participating in this very SCoPE event, though we are now nearly half finished with it and, far from consensus, have more thoughts about what sorts of badges should even be awarded to whom for what, in part due to our discussions here!
Hmm, I like the reflection on reflection, given how it is leading to a rich discussion related to many of the other tasks, or practices, we are moving onto. In some ways rubrics are so easy and simple, but in other ways they require a certain categorization that may be challenging to implement in the diversity of practice.
I agree that sheer quantity of posts is never sufficient to
measure learning. It does take a human eye to evaluate
them. Our college's platform (Angel) has a place for
instructors to rate input...I think there may even be a
way for participants' to rate each other's input...
especially for substantially adding to the discussion,
not necessarily for agreement with content: Participants
could click a #1 for subtantial content and a #0 for
essentially meaningless things like "I agree" etc.
Oh Joyce, I felt sad when I read your last sentence "for essentially meaningless things like "I agree" etc"
Interestingly, not sure why it made me feel 'sad' rather than 'annoyed' or some other emotion ... but anyway - I never see an "I agree" (or a 'like' :)) .. as 'essentially meaningless'. To me it can be the same as seeing your students in a face to face classromm 'nodding heads' or taking notes .. or a smile in a conversation / or 'oh yea' ... Posting 'I agree' or hitting the like button is to me a sign that active 'listening' or reading is occuring ...
sorry to 'dis-agree' :)
Perhaps I should have set the context better. I teach upper level undergraduate courses at a college where most courses explicitly say that replies to comments must contain explicit content (and sometimes even site readings web-sites etc...I don't go that far). Students are also often asked to engage in connected learning... actively building on one another's ideas. While, the "I agrees" are indeed like nods, they do not really move the conversation forward much. Many of my courses require students to help one another build on community projects or work together on complex treatment plans etc.
Students will often say things like "Your project sounds great!" to one another. While I am fairly sure that this kind of encourager does have a place in online dialogue as it does in face to face conversation, it is not as useful either to the person receiving the feedback or to me as the person who must evaluate work as a well-reasoned, content rich reply. Perhaps bothshould be recognized as valuable, but I am reasonably that substantive comments take more thought than what is substantially a written head nod.
Lest I seem like an ogre, in my teaching world the head- nod type comments are noted, appreciated, and taken into consideration in evaluating contributions, but not as much as a well-thought out substantive contribution. On a different but related topic, I always base my evaluation on students' strong points: some are good writers, some are good at facilitating conversation (consistent head-nods and positive comments are great encouragers), and some make consistent, cogent contributions.
All three would probably get an "A" from me if their participation indicates that they grasp course objectives. I am not quite sure how criteria for formal college courses maps onto informal and non- formal settings nor how it can be easily automated...but there are important differences between "head nods" and even "atta girls" and substantive contributions... and the latter should have more rewards because they take more work. (It is, of course, possible that I am jaded...it is the end of the semester and even some of my adult students seem to want maximum credit for minimum thought. I just want to reward those who do take the extra time and energy to reply thoughtfully.)
(Edited by Hilda Anggraeni - original submission Thursday, 6 December 2012, 04:17 PM removed the double space)
The discussion on here about measuring engagement in online discussions illustrates the diversity in our approach to this. How interactions are measured depends on the purpose of the discussion and the expectations or criteria being used.I agree - simply measuring rates of participation is less than useless unless it is combined with other measures, e.g. use of literature sources, development of an argument, demonstration of critical thinking, original thought etc.
I am a strong believer in fair, reliable and valid means of assessing whether it is formative or summative. I also feel that we need to ensure our expectations are clear and unambiguous. Our students should not have to read our minds about what is required.....so I am a fan of clearly laid out criteria or frameworks to guide what is required by participation in online discussions. I prefer that they are formative and build towards the development of summative assessments rather than actual posts being marked. The criteria are used to guide the students how to post.
With this in mind, I like the conceptual framework developed by Nandi, Chang and Balbo (2009) for measuring the quality of online discussions - this includes criteria to assess the content including level of critical thinking, and quality of interactions as well as the participation rate.
Nandi, D., Chang, S. & Balbo, S. (2009). A conceptual framework for assessing interaction quality in online discussion forums. In Same places, different spaces. Proceedings ascilite Auckland 2009.
Bronwyn, Thanks for the conceptual framework and the link! I have been looking for a framework for some time as assessing on-line discussions has been a nightmare and I don't agree that every post is worth a mark which some of my collegues adhere to. Will reflect on the framework! Pat
Wow .. thank you for your detailed reply.
First to the part of your comment “Lest I seem like an ogre ….” I smiled when I read that and no, you didn’t. You probably do not know this, but I have
been a bit of a stalker of yours in that, in a whole range of forums, when I
see by Joyce McKnight it is always one of the first posts, comments etc I go to. I have admired you from afar for a while and have actually been inspired by and learnt from you over a number of years … (and that is not sucking up – it is just a fact ..)
Ok and to the substance of your further comment.
Yes. I see what you mean and agree, particularly in the formal learning and assessment mode / course / program.
In the broader informal self-directed learning and interacting ‘world’ I sometimes find myself being a listener, watcher, observer rather than a contributor. This can be because I am time poor (as we all are) or more often because I’m not sure my contribution will be seen as ‘worthy enough’ (?) .. of a high enough standard (?) … contribute something that is meaningful or valuable enough. And so I fall back on the ‘I agree’ comment to show I am here, I’m listening, without having to step out and be seen / heard / possibly judged.
I know this is more about me and my own level of professional confidence rather than the reality of how my or anyone’s contribution is likely to be viewed and responded to.
LOL - just now I am thinking .. you shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition .. - or start a sentence with a conjunction .. BUT ‘bad grammar be dammed’ this response is not for grades and I’ve been told more than once, the way I write is like a ‘stream of consciousness’.
Anyway, the point is, your detailed response got me thinking once again. Thanks for that.
Years and years ago, as an old primary school teacher (so you would think I would have more respect for grammatically correct writing) I always ‘let’ and encouraged the kids to use the word ‘nice’ in first drafts. It was never banned in my room. However, ‘nice’ was never allowed to be the end of the sentence. It had to be followed by ‘because’ or ‘and’ or ‘when’ or ‘but’.
When we went back for our second draft we would revisit the word ‘nice’ and they would decide if it was really needed, added anything or helped.
So, as broad example, the sentence: ‘The sun is nice and ....warms my face.’
became ‘The sun warms my face.’ or even ‘I feel happy when the sun warms my face.’
So what I am thinking is, the ‘I agree’ comment is sort of like the word
‘nice’. For my journey, I am going to always try and never let ‘I agree’ be the end of the sentence, but rather add on … ‘because’, ‘when’, ‘but’ ..
AND when I see a person do a "I agree." type comment, I will tend to say ... I like you agree ... tell me why ... tell me more .. :)
Thanks Joyce. :)
Thanks for your comment about my participation. I sometimes worry that I "talk" too much. I would like to comment on one thing you said though:
In the broader informal self-directed learning and interacting ‘world’ I sometimes find myself being a listener, watcher, observer rather than a contributor. This can be because I am time poor (as we all are) or more often because I’m not sure my contribution will be seen as ‘worthy enough’ (?) .. of a high enough standard (?) … contribute something that is meaningful or valuable enough. And so I fall back on the ‘I agree’ comment to show I am here, I’m listening, without having to step out and be seen / heard / possibly
judged. In the real world where I don't have to "grade" anybody, I really like good listeners like you who pay careful attention and then weigh in... such carefully framed comments are usually very wise and provide excellent guidance. In this case I really like the idea of saying "I agree because..." Or "your project is wonderful because..." etc. such statements do move learning along whether in face to face or online situations. All the best. JMcK
(Edited by Hilda Anggraeni - original submission Friday, 7 December 2012, 09:58 AM removing double space)