Have you registered you badge?


When the Rhizo Team (well a subset of the Rhizo team) and I worked on the article Writing the Unreadable Untext for Hybrid Pedagogy we used Wordsworth's phrase “We murder to dissect”. If memory serves me right it was Sarah H. that initially brought this idea forward....or was it Keith? † That's the beauty of swarm writing, individual credit evaporates and it's what we accomplish together that feeds back to us as individuals.

In any case, it is this phrase that came to mind as I was reading a story on Campus Technology titled New Registry Will Demystify Badges, Credentials and Degrees, where the main crux of the story is that academia and industry are teaming up to create a registry with the intent of demystifying the value of different degrees, credentials, certifications, and so on. From the new story:
The registry "will allow users to easily compare the quality and value of workforce credentials, such as college degrees and industry certifications, using a Web-based system with information provided directly by the institutions issuing the credentials,"
This raised a bit of an eyebrow.  The first thing that came to mind is how much will this cost, and what is the ultimate benefit?  I am not talking about the cost of setting up the system, but rather, much like going gambling in Vegas, how much will it cost individual credentialing agents to be part of that conversation.  For example, let's assume that I run a training center where I train individuals on Microsoft Windows Server, or Active Directory.  I already give out a certificate of participation for those who make it and go through the steps, but I also want to give out badges - some more granular than others. Who will add those credentials to the registry? Is it me? or it is someone else?  Who vets those credentials?  Is there a system of peer review or can you just take my word?  And, how much does it cost to be listed?  The reason cost seems to come to mind is that for online programs, some states (such as Alabama, Arkansas, Maryland, and Minnesota) you need to be registered with the state, which costs money to register, and in some cases you need to place a collateral to be registered (I guess in case someone sues you).

My point is, how fair would such a system be?  Would it really demystify alternative credentialing or will it just re-enforce the existing power structures that we have with academia and professional organizations as credentialing bodies?  Isn't the point of an alternative credential that we are not working within the existing power structures and are looking for valuable alternatives to the way we do things now?  Do we murder our own initiatives in order to "demystify" them and compare them 1:1 with what already exists in the system?

Your thoughts?


NOTES:
† Sarah H. informs me that it was Maha who brought up the quote :)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Latour: Third Source of Uncertainty - Objects have agency too!

Image
Continuing on my exploration of ANT, and asynchronous and indirect dialogue with Latour - this blog post will cover the third source of uncertainty, which according to Latour, is that Objects have agency too! As with the previous blog posts, I've pulled out quotes from the book that seemed interesting, or that I reacted to in some way, and I am responding to them here. no tie can be said to be durable and made of social stuff (p. 66) This quote seems to continue Latour's assertion that there is no such thing as "social" or "social stuff" and that "social", or the meaning of needs to be negotiated and better understood.  It also continues the thought that social can only be seen from the actions of its actors, the traces they leave behind, and that these bonds are not durable because they need continuous reinforcement. I guess Social is a perishable item. Left to its own devices, a power relationship that mobilizes nothing but social skil
Read more

MOOC participation - open door policy and analytics

The other day I was reading ZML Didaktik on the topic of MOOC participants. In MOOCs, one of the big questions is why are people lurking and not participating? If more than 500 people join a MOOC, why are only 10% contributing with any amount of regularity?  On the same blog, in a previous blog post, I had commented (it was an open stream of thought really) that perhaps there should be an open enrollment period, and then if the system sees that certain participants are bellow a threshold of activity, the system may give them the option to self-identify as a lurker, or un-register from the class. This line of thought went along a view that compared to the traditional classroom; in a traditional classroom students register for the course, they can attend classes for a week and then decide whether or not they want to stay with the course or not. If they do stay with the course they know that there is a certain amount of "lurking" that they can get away with, but they do have
Read more

You've been punk'd! However, that was an educational experience

Image
It's now the end of Teaching Goes Massive: New Skills Required (aka #massiveteaching) on coursera. Well, almost, we still have a couple of days left. I guess that the lesson here is that we were (the "learners") were punk'd† by Paul-Olivier Dehaye of the Univerisity of Zurich. After that last blog post (and subsequent pickup of the post by George Siemens and others) Inside Higher Education and the Chronicle wanted to chat with me about this MOOC experience. I only had time for one of the two before things went to press, so my 15 minutes of fame went to IHE.  Both IHE and the C hronicle have written about the topic, and have received some information from Coursera on the incident.  Others have also written about it (see here , here and here ) It's surprising to me that the University, and Coursera, waited until after this thing was a big issue in order to respond in the class, and clue people into what was happening. On Wednesday (day 3 of Week 3/3 of the
Read more