Foreword

This article is the third in a series of 4 articles recounting the journey of REVEAL, an Erasmus+ project, in its approach to using Open Badges.

The journey passed through four major milestones detailed in a series of 4 articles:

1. Authoring: Open Badges will work wonders!
2. Reality check: Open Badges don’t work as expected!
3. Adjusting creatively to reality: Before the Open Badge was… the word!
4. Reinventing Open Badges: Beyond Open Badges: Open Recognition!

Notice

The information, documentation and figures available in this deliverable are written by the "Recognition of Experience Validation of Experience, Achievements and Learning" (REVEAL) project partners under EC grant agreement  2020-1-FR01-KA204-080054 and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. The European Commission is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
The project REVEAL is funded with the support of the European Commission

 

Introduction

By this stage of the project we realised that the Open Badge technology currently at our disposal was not conducive to supporting the type of informal recognition required to develop Local Recognition Networks. We understood that without the informal, there would be no formal, in particular: 

• Informal recognition is essential to the good operation of formal and  informal communities
• The formal is generally the formalisation of something that was previously informal
• Although a diploma is a formal recognition, its recognition by employers remains informal.

What was the cause of the problem? Why did Open Badges fail to support the kind of informal recognition we were aiming for? Was it the fault of the Open Badges or the technology supporting them? Both?

When solving a problem, it is easy to miss the big picture because of what is known as "funnel vision," exemplified by Abraham Maslow's famous quote: “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.” For REVEAL, which is about recognition, one could rephrase Maslow's quote as follows: 

“If the only tool you have is Open Badges, you tend to see every recognition issue as a credentialing opportunity.”

But “credentialing” is not the same as “recognising”: if there is a recognition deficit, the solution is not “credentialing” but “recognising.” Open Badges can only make visible the recognition produced to reduce the deficit. By itself, an Open Badge cannot reduce a recognition deficit.

In addition, as discussed in the first article, denying individuals the power to recognize is one of the most critical deficits in recognition. This is hard-coded into most, if not all, current badging systems. For current badge systems, informal recognition is of little or no value. If anything, it's peripheral, such as the possibility of endorsing a badge.

To find a solution to our problem, an environment conducive to informal recognition, we had to think out of the box, and more specifically think out of the badge. The collaboration with another Erasmus+ project was instrumental to an effective problematisation and the formulation of a solution.

That is when we realised that before the Open Badge was… the word!

“Before the Open Badge was… the word!”

 

Building Local Recognition Networks

Local Recognition Networks (LRNs) were developed in response to a need to provide communities with ways to recognise its members and be recognised as a community, a concept later formulated as "double loop recognition” (c.f. below). LRNs are not created ex nihilo but grow from within existing communities.

How could Open Badges contribute to the development of LRNs? Until now, we have had badge platforms allowing organisations to issue badges that the recipients are invited to store in their individual Backpacks and, possibly, share them on social networks with the hope that they might become useful one day. One way to characterise many Open Badge practices is: “spray and pray!” As there is no proper application designed to create value out of the data contained in Open Badges, the only thing one can do so far is issue and display badges.

In essence, this modus operandi mimics the way formal recognition works. But while it does work with formal recognition, it is solely because the institutions delivering badges are “recognised authorities.” If the issuer of a badge is not a “recognised authority,” then one might assume that the badge has little or no value.

How to give value to a badge that is not issued by a “recognised authority”? By creating the conditions for the “not yet recognised authority” to become recognised. How? By providing the means for a community or an organisation delivering Open Badges to be recognised in its own right. 

Although Open Badges were invented to make informal learning visible, informal learning is not just performed by individuals, but also communities. A community of practice, for instance, is a learning community in which learning is primarily informal—and may become formalised in the future. Yet, current Open Badges applications only have a provision for recognising individual learning, not community learning. The Mozilla Backpack was designed for individuals and communities or organisations issuing badges were not required to have one…

Double Loop Recognition

This line of thinking led the REVEAL project to acknowledge that for a Local Recognition Network to provide value to its members we need to take into consideration the articulation between individual and collective recognition:

• Being part of a community is a form of recognition that its members can claim and share with the outside world;
• Within a community, members can recognise each others, offer and claim recognition;
• When a member of the community is recognised outside of that community, this recognition can be beneficial to all the members of the community;
• When a member of the community recognises an entity (person or community) outside the community, this creates a connection between the two entities
• When the community as a whole is recognised, it is beneficial to all its members.

The recognitions created within LRNs are not destined for use in some distant future (“spray and pray”), but rather as the fuel that keeps the community alive and growing for the foreseeable future. It is for the participants in a LRN to decide whether there is value in making some of those recognitions visible to the outside world, for example using Open Badges.

Articulating individual and community recognition

Once we understood the need for LRNs to articulate individual and community recognition, the question was: how could Open Badges and the Open Badge infrastructure contribute?

From an infrastructure standpoint, a Learning Resource Network (LRN) instead of mandating its members to create individual backpacks, it should be able to establish a group backpack. Apart from reducing the complexity of setting up a LRN, this would allow an outsider (and an insider!) to visualise the community as a whole, its members, its values and achievements, the internal and external recognitions offered and received, its evolution over time, etc.

Sadly, none of the Open Badge systems offered a group backpack, and the project lacked funding for its development. Developing a new Open Badge technology was not within the scope of the project. While, using existing badge tools, it might have been possible to simulate a group backpack, this became a moot point once we delved deeper into Open Badges.

We realised that the problem was not primarily with Open Badge systems, but rather with Open Badges themselves. While REVEAL required Open Recognition technology, we only had an Open Badge technology at our disposal.

 

How can Open Badges become obstacles to recognition?

To the question “How can Open Badges become obstacles to recognition?” the obvious response is: 

We have recognised long before Open Badges were invented. Open Badges are not needed to recognise, but to make recognition visible. If Open Badges become the only means of making recognition visible, they will become an obstacle.

There was a similar issue with ePortfolios: while designed to support reflective learning, reflective learning existed long before ePortfolios. ePortfolios became a hindrance to reflective learning once the following fallacy became prevalent: “to become a reflective learner you must have an ePortfolio.” Something that many institutions and practitioners translated into “you need to have an account on our ePortfolio system, so we can check that you are a reflective learner.” The “authentic voice of the learner” that ePortfolios were supposed to express rapidly became the “voice of the [institutional] ventriloquist.”

Another response to the initial question needs to look at the badge workflow from the point of view of a LRN composed of people with low or no qualification or low literacy:

Select a badge platform, pay a subscription, design badges, issue badges, collect badges, display badges, share badges, collect feedback,… 

The gap between no badge and a badge requires the mobilisation of numerous resources and a special set of skills, whether it is to create a selfie badge or co-construct one, not mentioning the complexity of creating a peer review system which is beyond the scope of even advanced practitioners.

As highlighted in the prior article, given the requirements, it's improbable that one of the target groups identified by REVEAL could independently initiate such a multifaceted workflow. With appropriate training, they might achieve it; however, in its absence, the use of Open Badge technology requires mediation and scaffolding. Experience shows that there are multiple factors that might introduce bias in a mediation: the source of funding, the success criteria and key performance indicators of the initiative, the mindset of the mediators (“what badges shall we create for our target audience”), etc.

« Si c’est juste pour montrer une compétence sur mon CV, pourquoi tu me prends la tête avec ton badge, y’a juste à écrire le mot ! » 

So, if one believes the fallacy that, in order to be recognised, people with low literacy or low qualifications need to use Open Badges, Open Badges are now on their way to become an obstacle to recognition. 

Once realising that Open Badges could be obstacles to recognition, how could we move the project forward? A first element to respond to that challenging question came from a participant in an Open Badge Workshop dedicated to the creation of a CV for a job search: 

"If it's just to show a competence on my CV, why are you messing with my head with your badge, just write the word!" 

One could imagine that the workshop moderator explained why a badge is more than a word, that it contains evidence of the claimed competence, that it is verifiable and could be endorsed, etc. Yet, a deep truth emerged from the workshop participant statement: 

before the Open Badge was… the word!

Unlike words, Open Badges, despite all their qualities, lack critical qualities: accessibility and immediacy. Words are the most natural way to recognise things and people: “It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s Superman”, “thank you”, “I love you”. They can also be used to create or destroy—didn’t Jean-Paul Sartre write: "Words are loaded pistols." So, if words are so powerful, why not use them in lieu of badges?

How could words be used à la manière des Open Badges? A badge is an image, but what would be the point of putting a single word in an image? How about displaying multiple words, like a tag cloud?

Tag cloud - source Mentimeter

Individuals could have individual clouds that could be aggregated to create community clouds, a feature that might facilitate the articulation between individual and community recognition.

A cloud could be created from a range of attributes, like competences (the activation in context of knowledge, skills, attitudes and values), interests, knowledge domains, practices, etc. Individuals would be able to create their own clouds based on what they want to be recognised for. The old saying “an image is worth a thousand words” would become “create an image with your own words.

The “Shopping List” of soft-skills - source NS4-SFC

To explore further this hypothesis, we had the chance to connect with another Erasmus+ project, NS4-SFC, dedicated to the recognition of soft-skills led by the Forem in Belgium. The project is based on an inventory of 27 soft-skills known as the "shopping list", an SFC-Lab to support their development and Open Badges to recognise their acquisition. The implicit idea when the project was written was that the Open Badges would match each of the 27 SFCs identified in the shopping list.

This cooperation was beneficial to both projects: 

• for REVEAL it was the opportunity to validate a number of assumptions related to the development of LRNs and the technologies supporting them.
• For NS4-SFC it was the opportunity to benefit from the REVEAL experience and tools we were in the process of developing.

NS4-SFC provided the perfect playing field to validate REVEAL’s work on its approach to recognition, badges and their alternatives.

The table below briefly describes the interaction between the two projects:

REVEAL-NS4-SFC cooperation

Building iREVEAL

One of the objectives of REVEAL was the development of iREVEAL, a Proof of Concept (PoC) of an environment that would support the development of Local Recognition Networks. Working with NS4-SFC greatly facilitated the design of iREVEAL. Conversely, the design of iREVEAL contributed to the design of the architecture for the recognition of soft-skills, one of the objectives of NS4-SFC.

The initial questions raised from the NS4-SFC needs were:

• How to deal with a framework which defines 27 different skills?
• Should we create badges for each of the different skills?
• Should participants claim all 27 badges because if they don’t, the missing badges might be interpreted as a lack of certain skills?
• Should we design badges for different levels of mastery—4 levels => 108 badges!
• Who will design the badges?
• Who will deliver the badges?
• Once issued, how will they be used?
• What will be their value?

While, at first glance, those questions seem relevant, they are revealing of the “Thinking Inside the Badge Box” syndrome (TIBB), a variation of the “If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail.”

To counteract TIBB debilitating effect on the intellect, the partners of the project were invited to reflect on the question of whether recognition is:

• External to soft skills?
• Internal to soft skills (one of them)?
• Underlying all soft skills (and by extension to any competence)?

Depending on the positioning chosen, the configuration of the project would not be the same:

• External: the target groups would not need to develop the ability to recognise, as the recognition of soft skills is a matter for recognised professionals (trainers, coaches, advisers, etc.).
• Internal: recognition should be added to the shopping list and recognised in the same way as other soft skills. The practical consequence of that choice would be that for this soft skill to be recognised, participants should have the opportunity to practise it.
• Underlying: the ability to recognise is activated for each of the soft skills (and beyond). This means that recognition should be taken into account in the very process of acquiring and recognising soft skills, for example by setting up a process to encourage reflexivity and recognition between peers.

The position agreed by the NS4-SFC partnership was that recognition underpins all soft skills and that, consequently, the practice of recognition is an essential component of the practice of the soft skills identified in the shopping list.

In light of this new positioning, we had to reconsider the initial Open Badges questions and challenge the asymmetrical positions of the stakeholders involved in the process with on the one hand: 

• Experts who design badges "for a public," but do not require badges themselves (after all, they are experts, have jobs, and probably qualifications), and on the other hand
• A “public” which may only claim badges designed and validated by the group of experts.

This was easily resolved by positioning the partners and beneficiaries of NS4-SFC as a community of practice dedicated to the study and recognition of the soft-skills to support social integration and employment.

This new understanding of the project led to the definition of 4 badges recognising the “posture” of people in relation to soft-skills:

• I discover — I want to know what soft skills are
• I experiment — I reflect on the soft skills I have, those I need to develop
• I practise — I integrate my soft skills into my practice [to adapt myself or the environment)
• I support — I develop tools and provide support and expertise (coach, trainer, etc.)

Instead of the initial 27, and potentially 108 (!) badges, we now just had 4 badges, defined in relation to the position of the members of an inclusive community of practice where all the participants in the project, whether “public” or experts, had a place. Moreover, those 4 badges placed the emphasis on the reflective process involved in the acquisition and mastery of skills and the empowerment of the community members. It also placed the emphasis on the fact that each skill does not exist independently from other skills activated in practice within a context.

iREVEAL Screenshots

What role for the shopping list in this new context? This is where the idea of “skill clouds” explored by iREVEAL could be tested:

• Use the shopping list to define 27 attributes that people could use to collect feedback from others.
• Instead of accumulating badges, users create a “soft-skills cloud” where some of the soft-skills are more “recognised” than others. This is how people are in real life, excellent at some things, only good at others and not so good at some.
• The “soft-skills clouds” are created by collecting feedback from peers, friends, and colleagues.
• Aggregated individual skills clouds create a collective skills cloud
• Collective skills clouds can be used to navigate across the places where people have been recognised for those skills
• Individual skills clouds can be used to navigate across the people who share the same skills.

A skill cloud is an invitation to connect to others, collecting feedback from them that will inform one’s own reflection. It evolves over time and it doesn’t matter whether it is an “exact” picture of one’s skills as at the end it is the community that decides whether you are (not yet) a practitioner.

iREVEAL is the Proof of Concept designed to embody a novel approach to recognition:

• Lower the barriers to access recognition whether technical or procedural;
• Put people in full control of their recognition of self and others;
• View recognition as a dynamic process that evolves over time;
• Articulate individual and community recognition.

As a PoC, rather than a “commercial grade” application, there are limitations, in particular:

• It is only possible to recognise soft skills —giving the choice between different frameworks and competences was far beyond the capabilities that could be included in the PoC. On the other hand, this will be implemented in ORCA, the new Open Recognition application
• iREVEAL works well on a laptop computer, less well on a smartphone or a tablet.

Designing iREVEAL as a means to recognise without Open Badges later contributed to the re-invention of Open Badge practices and technologies, moving from an Open Badge technology to an Open Recognition technology that might use Open Badges, but not just, that would enable the development of Local Recognition Networks, the original intention of the project.

At this stage of the project we had defined and verified the relevance of the main components of a LRN infrastructure:

• Attributes: the elements defining a Local Recognition Network that can be related to competences (knowledge, skills, attitudes and values), interests or anything that makes explicit what the Local Recognition Network is about.
• Attribute Clouds: the instruments designed for individuals to create their own clouds to reflect on their practice. The collective cloud is a means to provide an instant global view of the community attributes and navigate the community. It is also a tool inviting the community to reflect as a whole on its practice.
• Open Badges: the instrument used by the community to recognise the “maturity” of their members in relation to the object of the community. Members can claim badges that are peer-reviewed.

The global process of NS4-SFC as a “Local Recognition Network”

Next article: Reinventing Open Badges