OnPhD Supervisory Team

Currently, I want to identify my research methods / approach for my OnPhD research project. Given I have identified a weakness around research methods I believe I need some input into identifying my learning regarding research approaches, and to have people well versed in research would assist greatly. I will reach out to the OnPhD google group and also begin my search for my OnPhD supervisory team. Given I intend my research to be in the intersection of Educational Technology, Heutagogy, and Solution Architecture I would like my supervisory team to fall with a collective expertise in these areas.

One thing important to me is to turn away from traditional academia. This is not due to my thinking there isn't great value available from people with an academic background, and I really hope to have people well versed in academia on my supervisory team. I have two main reasons for looking away from traditional academia and current education innovation, these two reasons are as follows;

1. I believe so many great open education projects end up looking toward traditional approaches for guidance and support, or end-up leaning toward corporate interests. And through time these initiatives become increasingly aligned with traditional academic approaches and profit (rather than public service) and lose their opportunity to work outside these traditional approaches. I see this as important because I believe global education innovation needs to look more closely towards those who have limited access to education (those who have access to education are already well served). Traditional approaches struggle to comprehensively meet the needs of the 75% who do not have access to continued and tertiary education. I believe the solution will be found with more grassroots and clinical approaches, where the educational needs are localized and focused upon community educational needs rather than global educational trends. Due to environmental and economic factors, I believe the future is localized.
2. Learning is an individual meta-cognitive effort, and the current educational technology innovation should focus more on individual approaches rather than massive ones. I honestly believe the future of education is about teaching people to teach themselves, everything else is content and tools to deepen, assess and recognize learning. All educational technologies are tools in the individual learners toolkit. There is no significant difference in any one of these technologies being better than another, it is a collective effort.



There are more people unserved by Higher-ed than those being served. This needs to change by increasing the self-directed approaches to the life-long learning mix.

 The people in my dream team of OnPhD supervisors would come from a variety of backgrounds and fall into one of these three categories. My preference would be to also have supervisors who can span two of my three knowledge domains.

1. Educational Technology
Seeking educational technologists with a broad view toward applying technology to education. They would be equally well versed in open source and propriety systems. Though my preference would be toward open systems. They would have strong experience with rich and mixed media, and will have deployed these media on a variety of open platforms. They have good experience with implementing geographically disbursed systems and would have worked in public education.

2. Heutagogy / Pedagogy / Autodidactic
Seeking accomplished life-long learners who have reconciled within themselves how to best learn what interests them and what they need to be successful. These learners have differing depths of understanding the theories and approaches of heutagogy, andragogy, pedagogy and autodidactism. What is most important is they are self-directed life-long learners and/or help others to be self-directed life-long learners.

3. Solution Architecture
Seeking solution or enterprise architects with an interest in continued professional development within all subject domains of computer and information systems architecture. In particular, people who are familiar with open and standards based approaches to architecture with focus on TOGAF and software architecture.

WANTED: OnPhD Mentorship

What would provide you incentive to mentor someone (me) through to a PhD level of knowing a subject domain?

The commitment would be small and I would guide the process. Every four months I would provide a 15 minute video update with a collection of readings and other media for you to evaluate if you had the time or inclination. The subjects would be focused on educational technology, self-directed learning, and solutions architecture. If you had an interested in any of these subject domains I would be happy to deepen my knowledge by researching a subject for you.

So, what incentive would you require to share your knowledge and provide me assistance?

What is an Open and Networked PhD (OnPhD)?
I consider an OnPhD to be a self-directed exploration into a domain of knowledge. The mastery of the knowledge domain would be to a PhD level of knowing. The learning journey would be done completely in the open (for free) and would utilize a persons social and learning network (both online and off).

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.

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!