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.

100 thousand pageviews

It took me almost 10 years of blogging and almost 400 blog posts to reach 100,000 pageviews. Thank-you for all the inspiration, support and readership!

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.

Flipped assessment implemented

The 301 - Badge System Design course being built for the P2Pu School of Badges will also include flipped assessment. The basic idea of flipped assessment is to have people early on in a shared learning journey assess those who are a few lessons ahead. The thinking behind this is the people most invested in giving and receiving collaborative assessment and peer review are those currently active in a learning journey.


Within the P2Pu Badge System Design course the flipped assessment occurs twice. Once during task 3 where early learners review a badge system design created by someone almost finished the P2Pu course. And again as a peer assessment of another learners compare and contrast task.

The collaboration is supported by both early and later learners having to reach out to each other to complete the challenge. The fun part is how the early learners have to find an open badges quick issuing site to award badges to the later learners for completing the tasks they are reviwing. and without these in-course awards the learner will not achieve overall completion of the P2Pu challenge.

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.

Leveling of OnPhD badges

I have developed the OnPhD candidacy challenge on P2Pu. The purpose of this challenge is to guide people through the tasks of declaring their candidacy as an Open and Networked PhD.  A part of my work towards an OnPhD is to research alternative methods of assessment and accreditation for the self-directed life-long learner... I have the belief that digital and open badges will provide very well for the accreditation part. Therefore, I keep a concious eye toward the open badges movement and have been helping out in building the school of badges on P2Pu. I've taken on the creation of a couple of courses within this school, I am also doing some review of Leah MacVie's outstanding work within the school. One of the courses she has developed is 102 Quick Issuing, and I am working through the course to debug and give feedback. One of the tasks within the 102 Quick Issuing challenge is to describe a badge system you would be issuing badges. The badge system I am developing is to support the OnPhD. This badge system would recognize the accomplishments as a person meets or exceeds the milestones found within a traditional PhD while also allowing a person to be self-directed in defining their own OnPhD.

I have a deep appreciation of the colour themes within martial arts belt system to denote levels of accomplishment. I will use these within the development of the badge system for my OnPhD. Essentially, I will use the respective colours as part of the badge as I progress toward mastery in my chosen subject domain. Completing the OnPhD Candidacy challenge awards the earner a yellow candidate badge, and other tasks or accomplishments within this level would also be awarded a badge with a yellow colour. As the progression toward mastery progresses, so would the colour of the badge, closely matching the belt colours within the martial arts. Given the self-directed (or heutagogical) nature of the OnPhD much of the badge system design should be responsibility of the OnPhD candidate, allowing them to set their own learning directions(s). This would deepen learning and is strongly supported by current research around heutagogy.