Badge System Design for Communities

During the P2Pu community call it was suggested I tie the badge system design rubric more closely to communities (within which the badge has currency). Consider how the badge system represents skills, practices, participation, and habits of an existing community? How much does the community identify with the badge?

I believe this is a good suggestion and an excellent couple of questions. I took it on to deeply review the rubric and make adjustment to increase alignment with community based learning. Fortunately the adjustments required were small as the rubric had already considered community. The adjustments I did make made the rubric a better guide for individuals, communities, groups and institutions.

The vocabulary that ties the rubric to community;
I see it as very important that the rubric works well at guiding different individuals, groups, communities and organizations. I harvested some of the vocabulary associated with community and am grateful for this additional focus and increasing the rubrics ability to guide badge system design for communities.

• attending an event, or participating in a community
• encourage outstanding participation in community or event
• people who have earned the full collection of badges are considered masters by their peers
• earning one or many badges from within the system is considered an accomplishment by peers and community members
• multiple learning, achievement or recognition contexts and applies well across communities, events, curriculum and cultures
• it describes different learning, achievement or recognition approaches, associated tasks and outcomes
• for accrediting a subject, community or event domain
• endorsements from cross-industry / cross-subject organizations, communities and/or individuals
• team requires strong community building, pedagogical, and/or curriculum development skills

The badge within the community;
I believe the two questions can be answered together; how does the community identify with the badge? and does the badge represent the skills, practices, participation and habits of the community?

These are questions best answered by the community itself. And the rubric is well aligned to help groups and communities ask and answer these questions. The rubrics purpose is the guide and prompt thinking about the badge system being designed. It is not used (though it can be) to evaluate existing badge systems.

A critical look at the OnPhD Candidacy badge system

As a heutagogue I currently have three main learning activities; Creating challenges into the P2Pu school of badges, learning all I can about open and digital badges, and in developing the Open and Networked PhD. These three currently come together in my building of both the P2Pu challenge on Badge System Design and in developing and completing the OnPhD candidacy challenge. I am using the badge system I have designed for the OnPhD candidacy as the badge system I am using as I work through the badge system design challenge. For a good description on the OnPhD candidacy badge system follow the embedded link. Below is my critical review of this badge system, with my assessment of where each criteria is against the badge system design rubrics performance levels;

• Purpose: working - The badge system represents a significant accomplishment. Given it is wanting to award an equivalent to the PhD Candidacy it is unproven and unrecognized within any community.
• Graphical Design: introductory - The mono-color badge design is very simplistic with little branding or curriculum recognition. The graphical themes are very simplistic and have no relation to the broader community within it exists.
• Organization: notable - The badge system is well organized and progress to completion is easily understood. The organization and progression is well supported by the graphics of each badge. The images of the whole badge system ease understandability and being awarded each badge demonstrates an individual accomplishment toward the final goal of OnPhD candidacy.
• Criteria: notable - the criteria of each badge allows is to be considered an accomplishment within itself. Each badge could also be used within a different badge or learning system with similar goals. The criteria of each badge is timeless and would apply equally well at a future time.
• Technical Integration: introductory - the badge system has been implemented within a 3rd party badge issuing system and only has integration within the related curriculum system through the final badge within the whole system. The big risk here is the 3rd party badge issuer may not exist into the future.
• System Integration: notable - The open and networked PhD badge system and related criteria aligns very well with the candidacy requirements found within the traditional PhD. The badging approach also integrates well the open and digital badging approaches. The choice to use both wikiversity and P2Pu was conscious due to their alignment with open and networked learning. The meta-badge issued for completing the challenge will be issued by P2Pu, further deepening the badge system integration with the learning platform.
• Assertion: introductory - the issued badge(s) resolve back to URLs that can be confirmed within the issuer and the evidence URL's are baked into the badge.
• Endorsement: working - the issued badges are endorsed by the OnPhD community. Both Wikiversity and P2Pu have implied endorsement of the OnPhD candidacy badge system. More official endorsement will be sought once one or two candidacies have been completed from this challenge.
• Validity: introductory - Validity of learning is determined in how the badge evidence aligns with each badges criteria. It is to early in the badge system design to determine depth of learning for the badge earners as there are too few people who have earned the badge(s). Once a number of people have completed the OnPhD candidacy challenge, validity will be determined.
• Development Team: working - team has two main developers, both with strong technological and pedagogical backgrounds. Development of badge criteria included input from other strong subject matter experts.

Badge System Compare and Contrast

One of my current tasks is in developing the Badge System Design challenge for the P2Pu School of Badges. This course is based around a rubric developed for badge system design. In task three of the challenge it is requested the learner reviews, compares and contrasts a number of existing badge systems, this post answers this following request from the challenge.

1. Write a blog post or task discussion item describing what you found when exploring the different badge systems listed above. Compare and contrast the different badge systems. If you write a blog post be sure to provide the link to the post in the task discussion thread.


• foursquare - provides a very engaging flat badge system. A great example of earning badges for simple accomplishments. In general, foursquare badges are about visiting locations. Some badges are fun accomplishments, like visiting a location of global significance. The simple graphical appeal of the badges bring a cohesiveness to the badges. The foursquare badges are not focused on accomplishing learning goals, this is not to say people would learn if they visited a museum or hardware store a number of times.
• khan academy - provides a very comprehensive and integrated badge system. The badges are issued stealthfully when the learner completes an activity or lesson. Different scores are given for different badges, and badges are awarded for completing a number of related tasks. Khan Academy has effectively used objects in the universe (meteors, moon, earth, etc.) as the badge design theme. Badges are also grouped into programs and badges are issued for completing courses. The learning journeys associated with badge systems is not easily apparent.
• mozilla webmaker - provides a great set of badges well aligned with their digital literacy initiative. Badges are earned stealthfully and by completing accomplishments. Their badge system is well articulated and earning pathways are easily identified. The badge design is attractive and encourages engagement and the desire to learn.
• wikipedia - has been issuing badges (or barnstars), and should be considered one of the first online organizations to offer digital badges. Barnstars are awarded based on contribution and peer review / nomination. Most of the barnstars are stand alone and are not a part of a learning journey. Barnstars represent single accomplishments.
• carnegie mellon robotics - provides comprehensive learning journey toward computer science use within robotics. The program includes badges awarded along the way with completed tasks. The strength with this project is the good use of learning pathways, which are easily understood.
  
  
• compare and contrast - I believe the creation and use of learning pathways will become recognized as an important design principle when creating badge systems. These pathways can be created using traditional curriculum pathways, used during events and conferences, and by self-directed learners who are creating their own pathways. For the self-directed learner the idea of pathways aligns with personal curriculum mapping. I digress.
  
  Of the five badge systems above, two provide well visualized and easily understood learning pathways (mozilla webmaker & carnegie mellon robotics), one provides for ongoing learning (khan academy), and the other two are flat and provide recognition of accomplishment (foursquare & wikipedia).I believe all are successful with implementing the purpose of their badge system. I do believe the khan academy could do more with visualizing pathways for their learners for it is not immediately apparent what would be accomplished by pursuing which badges. The differences between the badge systems that support pathways and those focused on individual accomplishment show how both can be valuable in their own way, fun for the earner, have good visual appeal, and fit within the many different aspects of badge earning.

Badge System Design: Task 7

This is how I have approached completing task 7 of the P2Pu Badge System Design Course. I am using the Open and Networked PhD candidate challenge as the learning journey worthy of a small collection on badges. Task 7 of the P2Pu challenge requires completion of the following five activities;

1. Reflect upon a learning journey worthy of a few badges and envision a badge system to provide recognition for key learnings.
   
   The learning journey is creating and bringing together all the materials required to become an Open and Networked PhD candidate. The badge system will have seven micro badges, one for each task in the challenge. Once the learner has completed all tasks they will be awarded the OnPhD Candidacy badge.
   
   
2. Choose a performance level from the rubric and design the system to meet this level. Be sure to provide supporting discussion of how each performance criteria is being met.
   
   The badge system is meant to be a working badge system as described in the badge system design rubric.The criteria in the rubric are met as follows;
   
   • Purpose: the completion of the OnPhD candidacy challenge is a significant accomplishment with effort required to completed each of the seven tasks within the challenge. A person who earns all micro-badges and the OnPhD Candidacy Badge should consider themselves an OnPhD Candidate, equivalent to a traditional PhD Candidacy.
   • Graphical design: in this badge system uses a simplistic mono-color with a theme of images and good use of a banner. It doesn't provide any branding within the micro-badges and the banner names map directly to task names.
   • Organization: is a flat single level hierarchy consisting of seven micro-badges and one badge. The learning journey is easily understood and well organized. The badge system is only just been implemented but has been well received by the community.
   • Criteria: is succinctly described and allows for flexibility in different learning approaches. Each completed task adds to the overall objective. The earning of each micro-badge naturally leads to the next. Overall the badge system is easily understood.
   • Technical Integration: Badge(s) are easily available through the use of credly for awarding. This 3rd party badge issuing system allows for both criteria and evidence to be hosted at other locations. Badges can be moved to the Mozilla open backpack.
   • System Integration: The OnPhD Candidate badge system integrates well with existing and similar PhD candidacy requirements. The OnPhD Candidacy also integrates with well with heutagogical and autodidactical  approaches.
   • Assertion: the badge hosting organization (credly) is well established and will provide a hosting environment for the foreseeable future. 
   • Endorsement: The affiliations (endorsement) of the OnPhD with both Wikiversity and P2Pu bring added reputation. Once a number of candidates have successfully completed the OnPhD Candidacy challenge further endorsements will be sought.
   • Validity: is yet to be determined as no one has successfully completed all the tasks within the badge system. Validity will be determined once a small sample of candidates have completed the challenge.
   • Development Team: had one main developer with another providing subject matter expertise (SME). The curriculum development had input from three other SME which vetted the curriculum design.
   
   
3. Using pen and paper, drawing tool or some other way of image creation and draw the badge system. Diagram and describe the important graphical elements of each badge. Discuss the themes, and common elements of the badges. Publish the diagram and related discussion.
   
   
   
   
   
4. Provide a table describing and mapping criteria to each badge.
   
   The mapping of criteria to badges is well described in the "OnPhD Candidacy Badge System" blog post; http://criticaltechnology.blogspot.ca/2013/04/the-onphd-candidacy-badge-system.html
   
   
5. Publish all this work in a way available to the internet.
   
   A number of blog posts accompany this post in providing background and related information to completing this task.
   • http://criticaltechnology.blogspot.ca/2013/04/the-onphd-candidacy-badge-system.html
   • http://criticaltechnology.blogspot.ca/2013/04/leveling-of-onphd-badges.html
   • http://criticaltechnology.blogspot.ca/2013/04/badge-system-design-working.html

Badge System Design: Working

The Working badge system design is meant to be a complete badge system. It implements everything of the introductory badge system with the addition of a thorough set of dimensions and integration with other learning and credentialing systems. A working badge system is a complete badge system.

a simple working badge system design

The rubric has a number of criteria provided in the left column of the following table. The right column of the table provides the attributes what could be considered a working badge system. I have also added an italicized comment describing what I believe is success when designing a working level badge system. Keep in mind there are also Exemplary, Notable and Introductory performance levels within the rubric.

Criteria	Working
Purpose: What is the purpose of the badge being awarded. is it for a simple task, does it come with recognition (peer or otherwise), or does it represent an equivalent certification.	badge is awarded for completing a significant accomplishment, demonstrating a skill or participating in a community. Success: badge system collectively represents a significant accomplishment requiring effort and display of newly acquired skills and/or knowledge. Could also be awarded with a facilitation or community role where contribution is recognized by peers or community organizers.
Graphical Design: How the individual badges look and are related to one another. Is brand well represented.	Badge design is attractive and comprehensively establishes a brand and curriculum awareness. Earners are attracted to completing the criteria and earning the badge or collection of badges. Success: People are attracted to completing tasks, attending events or participating within a community so they can earn the badge. The badges within the badge system have a common look and graphical appeal attriactive to the earner community. People are wanting to display the badges on their personal profiles.
Organization: How the badge system looks as a whole and is understood as a system. Are levels (if applicable) clearly defined. Is the learning journey and awarding of badges easily understood. Does the badge system hold value within the community it serves?	The badge stands alone or is part of a very small (two to twelve) badge system. badge system is a single level badge hierarchy / network or has a simple parent-child relationship for earning the collection of badges. How the collection of badges relate to one another is easily understood. People are attracted to earning these badges. Success: Badge system is simple and mostly implemented as a flat system or with one level of hierarchy or degree of separation. The journey represented by the badge system is quickly understood.
Criteria: Does each badge stand on its own, or is it a part of a larger learning journey, is this well represented in the badges criteria. Does criteria provide flexibility so a badge can be reused in different learning contexts. Does the badge criteria accommodate for its potential expiration.	Criteria to earn the badge is comprehensive in that it describes different learning approaches associated tasks and outcomes. The criteria has one or more examples or completions for reference. Success: The collective of all the criteria meet the learning or participation objectives of the whole badge system. Each badges criteria can be met in multiples ways. There are available examples (evidence) of what successfully earning the badge looks like.
Technical Integration: How badge system integrates with the hosted learning system.	Badges are issued from either a 3rd party issuing platform or the course, community of practice, or individual is hosting their own OBI platform. Badge meta-data, including criteria and evidence, is hosted to allow flexibility in referring URLs. The ability to verify / assert badge validity has been implemented. Success: Badges are easily issued with the ability to refer to a variety of internet locations and data types for criteria and evidence. Linking to badges for display and organization comes with little effort. Issued badges can be easily moved to the Mozilla open backpack. Badges can be verified after issue.
System Integration: How the badge system integrates with related and similar curriculum and badges systems. Are applicable standards being applied.	Badge system shows consideration to other related communities of practice, curriculum and standards. These related badge systems are easily recognized and referenced. Success: Badges integrate well within their own badge system and also recognize other similar badge systems, curriculum, events, communities, etc. Badge system could begin to share among themselves or badges could be applied to non-badge tasks with little rework. An integration task could be done with little conceptual effort.
Assertion: Does the badge system resolve back to an existing and reputable organization and hosting environment.	Badge assertion refer back to an environment that will continue in perpetuity or until badge expires. Personal accomplishments can be recognized through time. Success: Badges will be hosted until all issued badges have expired. The issuing organization should give attention to its reputation within the community it serves.
Endorsement: Is the badge system recognized by other organizations, communities, individuals and/or systems. Does it fit with previous badging and credentialing systems.	Endorsed by one to five organizations, communities or individuals of unconfirmed reputation. Success: The badge system should have endorsement beyond the institution, community or small group that is issuing the badge(s). This further endorsement should come from a recognized group or organization. Loose affiliations will work as long as recognized by both parties.
Validity: how is the badge determined to be valid. What is considered valid.	Sample of earners of the badge repeatably demonstrate learning required to earn the badge as described in badge criteria. Success: Earners of the badge(s) can demonstrate skills, knowledge and familiarity aquired while participating in the earning of the badge(s). This will work equally well for learning based badges, community based badges, and conference attendance type badges
Development Team: broadness of experience held within the badge system development team.	All skills and knowledge for building the badge system reside within two to seven people. Some team members will possess multiple skills and knowledge. Team requires strong pedagogical and curriculum development skills to evaluate comprehensiveness of badge system, criteria and assessment methods. Success: Focus on having the badge system "curriculum" well designed and reflected in all the criteria attributes of the badges. The team should be able to design and deploy badges and related criteria to meet the desired learning, participation or event outcomes. Team should be more than one so you can discuss and be critical of design.

Badge System Design: Introductory

I'm building a rubric to assist people understand badge system design. There are many things to consider when building badge systems and having guidance, ways to assess the system design progress, or prompt your thinking toward badge system design is good. This rubric is also a foundational resource in the P2Pu course on Badge System Design. This post sets out to describe the thinking behind the introductory performance level within the rubric.

Well designed badge

The Introductory badge system design is meant as just the basics of a badge system. The badge system implements just what is needed to provide a basic / introductory badge or small system of badges. The level of knowledge to create an introductory badge system is a minimum.

The rubric has a number of criteria provided in the left column of the following table. The right column of the table provides the attributes what could be considered an introductory badge system. I have also added an italicized comment describing what i believe is success when designing an introductory level badge system. Keep in mind there are also Exemplary, Notable and Working performance levels within the rubric.

Criteria	Introductory
Purpose: What is the purpose of the badge being awarded. is it for a simple task, does it come with recognition (peer or otherwise), or does it represent an equivalent certification.	badge is awarded for accomplishing a simple task or set of tasks each awarded for a badge within the simple badge system. Success: keep it simple, awarding badge(s) for a task or small set of tasks. Could also be awarded for participation in a conference or maker faire.
Graphical Design: How the individual badges look and are related to one another. Is brand well represented.	Badge has simple design, with little brand or curriculum affiliation. Monocolor badge with simple graphical themes. No integration with other internal or external badge systems. Services the basic graphical needs of a png or svg file. Success: Not too much design effort exerted. Has a simple visual appeal with basic brand and curriculum affiliation.
Organization: How the badge system looks as a whole and is understood as a system. Are levels (if applicable) clearly defined. Is the learning journey and awarding of badges easily understood. Does the badge system hold value within the community it serves?	A single badge system, where the badges are well designed from a graphical perspective and how they can be earned on their own and within another learning journey. Success: Badges are easily understood and the learning journey is clearly articulated in both text and as an image. The badge holds value within the community it is awarded. Value is built through the quality of evidence associated with each awarded badge, the reputation of the community in which the badge is awarded, and the frequency of badges being awarded.
Criteria: Does each badge stand on its own, or is it a part of a larger learning journey, is this well represented in the badges criteria. Does criteria provide flexibility so a badge can be reused in different learning contexts. Does the badge criteria accommodate for its potential expiration.	Criteria to earn the badge is well articulated and easily understood. Criteria attribute within badge meta-data resolves to URL. Success: Each badge has a simple to understand criteria with a well described set of tasks or accomplishments to earn the badge.
Technical Integration: How badge system integrates with the hosted learning system.	Badges are issued from one of the 3rd party public and open badge issuing platforms. Little, to no, integration with the course, community of practice, earner or issuer site(s) are present. Associated URL's resolve back to working and open URL's (no login required). Success: A working badge system has been implemented within one of the 3rd party issuing systems. All criteria and evidence attributes resolve back to working URL's.
System Integration: How the badge system integrates with related and similar curriculum and badges systems. Are applicable standards being applied.	Badge fits well within its own badge system and related curriculum. Standards applied are local to the organization, community of practice, group or an individuals badge system. Success: Badges are well integrated within its badge system and related curriculum, tasks or accomplishments. If standards exist within the issuing organization, community of practice, group or individuals practices; these standards are honoured.
Assertion: Does the badge system resolve back to an existing and reputable organization and hosting environment.	Learner assertions resolve back to valid URL's. Success: assertions resolve back to working URL's, no 404 errors. Hosting environment will remain until all issued badges have expired.
Endorsement: Is the badge system recognized by other organizations, communities, individuals and/or systems. Does it fit with previous badging and credentialing systems.	NA Success: An introductory badge system design does not implement any form of endorsement. Not that endorsement isn't important, its just  that endorsement would move a badge system into a higher performance level.
Validity: how is the badge determined to be valid. What is considered valid.	The evidence of an earned badge represents the learning criteria of the badge. Success: All issued badges have evidence attributes that fulfills the badge criteria.
Development Team: broadness of experience held within the badge system development team.	All skills and knowledge for building the badge system reside within one to three people. Some team members will possess multiple skills and knowledge. Non-team members are available as subject matter experts. Success: There is one or more people who collectively have all the skills and knowledge to create an introductory badge system.

The OnPhD Candidacy Badge System

If you want to earn the OnPhD Candidacy Badge you need to be awarded the following seven micro-badges. Each of these micro-badges are awarded for completing a task within the OnPhD candidacy challenge. All of these badges, with the exception of the Candidate badge, are hosted at the credly site and can be issued by anyone who has already earned the badge. Provided below is a copy of the badge image and the title, description and link to the related tasks from the P2Pu site.

	1. Describe your learning history - This is a cumulative description of all the works (formal and informal) you have completed to be considered toward your candidacy for an ONPhD. https://p2pu.org/en/groups/onphd-candidacy/content/describe-your-academic-history/
	2. Identify your domain of study - View and Discuss The described domain of study should be both broad and focused. This is to allow others to get a sense of both the knowledge domain and your focus. https://p2pu.org/en/groups/onphd-candidacy/content/identify-your-domain-of-study/
	3. Detail your contribution - What of considerable significance are you going to contribute to your chosen subject domain of knowledge? https://p2pu.org/en/groups/onphd-candidacy/content/detail-your-contribution/
	4. Methodology - Completion of a PhD requires a significant reseach project or major contribution to your chosen knowledge domain. https://p2pu.org/en/groups/onphd-candidacy/content/research-methods/
	5. Skills and Knowledge Development - Completion of a PhD level of knowing also requires the development of other related skills and knowledge. https://p2pu.org/en/groups/onphd-candidacy/content/skills-and-knowledge-development/
	6. Engage the community - How are you going to engage the learning community and your learning network. https://p2pu.org/en/groups/onphd-candidacy/content/engage-the-community/
	7. Seek supervision and endorsements - Identify the people in your learning network who are going to assist on your learning journey and help you get to finished. https://p2pu.org/en/groups/onphd-candidacy/content/seek-endorsements/

Context works within the badge system design rubric

I continue to solicit feedback for the badge system design rubric I have created for the P2Pu course under the same name. Last week I had a great (and too short) talk with the P2Pu team during their regular community call. One important idea that came from the discussion was how the rubric applies to different learning (and badging) situations? I.e. does it apply to individuals, communities and institutions equally? Short answer; Yes. After a review, and few changes the rubric could apply equally well to different groups or learning contexts.

• Individual - people or small groups, friendships, self-directed learners, autodidacts, heutagogues.
  Design Impact: Design the system for themselves with reference to existing badges systems or themes within subject domain. Individual or small group has to be responsible for all aspects of badge system.
• Community - community organizations, festivals, conferences, communities of practice, distributed groups.
  Design Impact: Consideration of how badge systems differ for a community of practice or conference. Badges awarded for informal tasks, participation or alternative approaches to learning. System may be considered more celebratory in nature or branding for event or community.
• Institution - traditional educational institutions, large businesses, international organizations.
  Design Impact: Alignment and or extension of existing and traditional (or product based) curriculum. Organizational brand needs to be considered in design. Look for opportunities for badging co-curricular activities or informal learning related to institution / organization,

I believe adding these three contexts as different views into the rubric will make it stronger and more comprehensive.

A badge system design rubric

With the amazing assistance and feedback from others I have created a badge system design rubric. The purpose of this rubric is to guide people toward creating a good badge system. The rubric is not meant to evaluate existing badge systems, but to prompt thinking about what is a good badge system design. The goal is for people to create effective and well thought-out badge systems.

A pdf file of the badge system design rubric is available with this link.

The rubric has four levels of performance and nine criteria. The levels of performance are as follows;

1. Introductory - this is meant as just the basics of a badge system. the badge system implements just what is needed to provide a basic / introductory badge system. The level of knowledge to create an introductory badge system is a minimum.
2. Working - this is meant to be a working badge system. It implements everything of the introductory with the addition of a more thorough set of dimensions and integration with other learning and credentialing systems. A working badge system is a complete badge system.
3. Notable - this is meant to be a badge system of note, it should be referred to as a good working system with additional features that should be considered when developing badge systems. It implements everything of the working system with the addition of being recognized (and utilized) by other learning and credentialing systems within the same subject domain.
4. Exemplary - the exemplary badge system is a badge system that most others aspire to be. The exemplary badge system becomes the defacto standard for accrediting a subject domain.

for greater understanding of each level of performance for the badge systems, read each level as a column. Given the depth of detail for the criteria I will be dedicating a blog post to each criteria explaining my thinking, references and rationale. Remember, the badge system design rubric is to guide the development of a badge system not evaluate existing badge systems.