Community Task – My experiences with this E-Learning 3.0 course

       I don’t know what your reaction was to the receipt of the two online surveys asking for feedback on E-learning 3.0, but I trashed both. To soon to say which part of the course I liked the best since we were not even halfway through it.
     However, this week’s task, Roland’s approach to writing about our experience and Jenny’s reflective post on her course experience has prompted me to pass along my two cents (and consensus to the task).
     I have participated in Stephen’s C-MOOCs since CCK08 and this one has a different feel. It seems a bit more intimate and I have enjoyed reading Jenny’s and Laura’s reflections and thoughtful comments.
     Stephen’s resources have always been my favorite piece of his MOOCs as they have exposed me to topics I wouldn’t normally explore on my own.
     The very technical nature of the topics is of less interest. Instead, the implications of how these technologies will shape the trajectory of our lives are my main interest. Trying to understand the primary, secondary and tertiary implication are what makes it worth the time (the insights from others is very helpful).
     The specific weekly tasks have focused me to think about the implications and the corresponding posts by Jenny and Laura have provided a quiet reflective conversation to parse through the uncertainties and concerns.
     As I commented earlier, concerns of trust, security, privacy, virus, scams, bad actors, etc. are issues that are not just applicable to a centralized or decentralized but to the future of a distributed network.
     Mentally I have moved towards the idea of reclaiming my internet identity by exploring some of the capability of these 3.0 tools and attempting to place them into my workflow practices (still a work in progress).

Thanks Frank

elearn 3.0 Week 6 Recognition Task

Now that I have awarded myself my first Doin’Stuff badge, I now need to do the three parts of the task. I created my WordPress blog on Doin Stuff with a post called elearn 3.0 Week 6 Recognition Task (which I hope you are reading). When Stephen provides the document, I can enter my RSS feed for my blog that I found on OERu Feed Fonder which is https://frankpolster.com/blog/feed/.

Here are a few screenshots of which I shared the link to the badge to a fictional employer who then has the option of verifying (next under graphic). I must have missed a step in Badgr since the Issuer/Profile: is blank (see the 2nd graphic). I am not sure what the Verification Details Status: “1 warnings” means. Maybe it is a warning that I really have not completed the third task of “Enter(ing) the RSS Feed URL into the form Stephen will be providing” since Stephen hasn’t provided the spreadsheet yet. (;-)

There is an interesting addition option to the Badgr badge that can align it to an educational standard e.g Common Core or a competency model. That information may be relevant to people viewing a learner’s awarded badges, or to a potential learner deciding whether to apply for the badge. That type of alignment to an accredited/recognized standard that is verifiable is a nice value add to the badge.

In the context of Stephen’s  Recognition synopsis, I wanted to conduct a short thought experiment with Stephen’s activity data as a future construct of evidence of learning and see where the value-add idea of a badge’s alignment to an accredited/recognized standard that is verifiable may fit or not.

In Stephen’s future, we will essentially have a multitude of activity data outside of a school program that is more indicative of how and whether a person has learned through “evaluation services that use zero-knowledge methods to calculate an individuals status against any number of defined (or implicit) employment or position requirements.”

So in this future, as an example, an evaluation service calculates your match to the applied for job and the job offer becomes the “new certificate” as opposed to a diploma or a  certificate for a course completion or a badge, all of which are now activity data. (Ok, I ‘m good with that, I have a job and hopefully one that I can grow in and with. (:-) )

I would suspect that the foundational underpinnings of this future where the activity data is more indicative of the learner’s skills and capacity, is the modeling of the activity data types with the competency definition standards work that Stephen points to.

may fit or not?

I think it shifted and it is more than alignment. The shift is to the verification, validation, and accreditation of the modeling of the activity data to the competency definition standards that the evaluation services and its algorithms (also verified, validated and accredited)

– cranks out showing causality – why I know you can do the job.

What do you think?

Thanks, Frank

 

css.php