The use of Open Badges in library and information science education in Estonia

2.1 What are Open or Digital Badges?

The use of Open Badges is relatively new and innovative in higher education, and made possible by recent technological developments. There are several definitions of Open or Digital Badges. For example, Mozilla Foundation (Mozilla Foundation, 2012, p. 3) defines Open Badges as “a symbol or indicator of an accomplishment, skill, quality or interest used to set goals, motivate behaviours, represent achievements and communicate success in many contexts”. Gamrat et al. (2014, p. 1136) note that digital badges are “online representations of learning experiences and activities that tell a story about the learner’s education and skills.” Grant (2016, p. 3) defines Open Badges as “digital image files that contain metadata, and their origins are inseparable from the ethos of open source code and software protocols”. Liyanagunawardena et al. (2017, para. 1) define Open Badges as “a digital representation of skills or accomplishments recorded in a visual symbol that is embedded with verifiable data and evidence. They are created following a defined open standard, so that they can be shared online”. Thus, Open Badges, also referred to as Digital Badges or Educational Badges, are visual symbols or digital representation of knowledge and skills, learning achievements or experience for certifying and recognizing learning acquired from different educational providers, and packed with data and evidence that can be shared across the web. While a Digital Badge is an online representation of a skill the learner has earned, Open Badges take that concept one step further, and allow learners to verify their skills, interests and achievements through credible organizations (Openbadges.me, 2018, p. 2).

On its surface, a badge is nothing more than an image file encoded with metadata such as which organization awarded it, the name and description of the badge, what skill, competency or achievement the badge represents, the criteria for earning the badge, the date of issue, if and when it expires, and links to evidence for why it was awarded. With support from the MacArthur Foundation, Mozilla developed an Open Badges Infrastructure (OBI), an open standard that was released in 2012. The OBI is a key element in the adoption and success of an ecosystem of badges, designed to support a broad range of different badge issuers, and to allow any user to earn badges across different issuers, web sites and experiences, and then combine them into a single collection tied to their identity (Mozilla Foundation, 2012; Ash, 2012).

2.2 Open Badges as innovation in higher education

Several educators believe that Open Badges have enormous potential for fostering student learning and changing education. For example, Bowen (2013) notes that Digital Badges point to a significant and innovative disruption to higher education in how learning achievements will be recognised, made more visible and reach beyond institutions. Willis et al. (2016, p. 23) believe that Open Badges are “one of the most promising educational technology tools” which are “quickly changing curricula, job acquisition, and workforce credentialing”. They also note that Open Badges are “beginning to change informal and formal learning ecosystems and there is an attempt to demonstrate how an epistemological philosophy of badges can change educators’ thinking and accelerate innovation”. O’Shaughnessy (2011, para. 1) even thinks that the traditional college degree may not be necessary in the future if the concept of digital badges spreads, because people who earn open badges can show to employers what skills and knowledge they have regardless of whether they have a degree or not.

The development of Open Badges is deeply rooted within the ideals of openness in education that highlights the idea that knowledge should be shared freely, learners should have equitable access to educational resources and the desire to learn should be met without demographic, economic, and geographical constraints. However, open education is not a new term as open universities have adopted it approximately 150 years (James & Bossu, 2014, p. 81). Since 2000 the ‘open philosophy’ in education has been evolving rapidly: Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) established OpenCourseWare in 2002, the Open University set up OpenLearn in 2006, followed by the early development of Open Massive Online Courses (MOOCs) in 2008 and various open learning platforms representing an ongoing development of the open education movement (Yuan & Powell, 2013, p. 6; Rajabi & Virkus, 2017). Currently, there are a wide range of approaches and movements to ‘open up’ education: for example, open educational resources (OER) and open educational practices (OEP), but also open access to research and data, open textbooks, open technologies, open policies, open governance and so forth (Stag & Bossu, 2016). Open Badges “greatly contribute to the general trend of open education by enforcing an open approach to recognition of learning achievements, by providing open evidence of learning accomplishments, by open criteria for credentialing learning” and “by being based on an open technical standard and free software, as well as by enabling open displaying and sharing of one’s achievements” (Devedzic, 2016, para. 1).

Watters (2011a) notes that the main premise behind the idea of Open Badges is that the institutions and organizations traditionally responsible for accreditation no longer match the realities of what learning looks like today. Learning today happens everywhere, not just in the classroom, but often outside a formal setting, through open education opportunities like MOOCs, social and mobile platforms, video tutorials, webinars, Wikipedia or on the job, workshops, seminars and in the community. However, much of that learning does not ‘count’ in today’s world. Watters (2011b) further explains that a degree does not necessarily indicate your skill proficiency and earning Open Badges is a means of gaining skills, that are not necessarily represented by a degree, and then showing those skills to potential employers. Thus, Open Badges can provide evidence of learning, regardless of where, when, and how it happens, and give learners tangible recognition for their skills, competencies, achievements, experience, interests and affiliations that they can share with potential employers, formal institutions or peer communities (Watters, 2011b; Mozilla Foundation, 2012).

However, the metaphor of the digital badge is based on its use in the offline world for centuries where legions of scouts “have decorated their sashes with badges, demonstrating their mastery of various skills” (Watters, 2011b, para. 1). James Gee, first proposed the idea of digital badges used as credentials in 2007. He indicates that the notion stems largely from the video game industry where players earn achievement badges as they move up levels in a game (Moodie, 2011).

The concept of Open Badges, however, started to spread more widely at the end of 2010 at a conference held by the Mozilla Foundation in Barcelona (Ash, 2012, para. 4). In recent years, Open Badges have gained popularity worldwide and have become a standard feature of many learning management systems (LMS) such as Moodle, Blackboard, Canvas, Schoology, Mahara, etc. Several organizations in educational communities such as Khan Academy or Foursquare social network have used Open Badges to recognize people’s learning (Randall et al., 2013) and their use is expanding rapidly in many settings (schools, higher education, companies, government agencies, museums, libraries, communities, etc.) (Carey, 2017). Elkordy (2012, para. 9) notes that open badges are firmly grounded in motivational and learning theories as well as social and educational psychology, and are successfully implemented in order to measure and reward achievement within various contexts, for example, academic and professional learning contexts such as in epistemic (learning) or serious games.

Several authors have described the goals, roles, characteristics and functions of Open Badges.

2.3 Goals and roles of Open Badges

The role of badges as competency credentials and as bridges from informal to formal learning increase the potential of open badges for changing teaching, learning and assessment processes in higher education (Gibson et al., 2016, p. 1). One potential for open badges is to award credentials for alternative forms of learning experiences acquired outside formal education settings. Hickey (2012a, para. 3) identifies three types of primary goals for using badges: (a) showing what somebody has done or might be able to do, (b) motivate individuals to learn or do and (c) transform or create learning systems. Gibson et al. (2016, p. 16) outline three primary roles of Open Badges for supporting learning journeys in higher education: (a) bringing visibility and transparency to learning, teaching and assessment; (b) revealing meaningful, identifiable and detailed aspects of learning for all stakeholders; (c) providing a new mechanism to recognize skills, experience and knowledge through an open, transferable, stackable technology framework.

Joseph (2012) presents six frameworks for examining digital badging for learners to explain why people align themselves with badges and what their goals are in using badges. The six frameworks include: (1) badges as alternative assessment; (2) gamifying education with badges; (3) badges as learning scaffolding; (4) badges to develop lifelong learning skills; (5) badges as digital media and learning driver, and (6) badges to democratize learning. These are the main reasons for using open badges as reflected in the literature.

2.4 Characteristics of Open Badges

Many of the characteristics of Open Badges make them well suited to support personalized ways of learning and allow students to choose their own pathways through learning content. Open Badges are:

(1)

free and open: a free software and an open technical standard allow any organization to use, create, issue and verify Open Badges;

(2)

transferable: badges earned in one environment can be shared in another – they can be transferred from one backpack to another and from one online platform to another;

(3)

stackable: badges from one organisation’s system can build upon ones from another system and be stacked to tell the full story of learner’s skills and achievements;

(4)

evidence-based: each badge has metadata which is hard-coded into the badge image file that links back to the issuer, criteria and verifying evidence (Mozilla, 2019, para. 3).

Goldberg adds transportability and the granularity. Transportability refers to the ability of the badge to follow the badge earner through his lifetime and be recognized in a variety of environments. Granularity emphasizes the need for specific data and details about why and how the badge was earned, so that anyone viewing it will have a clear understanding of the competencies of the badge owner (Ash, 2012, para. 37–38).

2.5 Functions of Open Digital Badges

Hickey (2012b) outlines four major functions for Open Badges: recognizing learning, assessing learning, motivating learning and evaluating learning.

(1)

Recognizing learning – this is the primary function of badges as they can capture various skills and achievements and provide a detailed picture of learners’ skills, experience, achievements and qualities;

(2)

Assessing learning – according to Hickey (2012a) assessing learning is one of four major functions for Open Badges. Badges can help: (1) drive innovation around new types of assessments; (2) provide more personalized assessments for learners and (3) move beyond out of date or irrelevant testing practices. However, there are multiple assessment options for earning a badge and ensuring that the needs of each learner are met including course organizers, peers, or learners themselves. Nearly every application of Open Badges includes some form of assessment: for example, summative, formative, transformative, instructor-, peer-, and self-assessment (Hickey 2012a, 2012b);

(3)

Motivating learning – much of the concern and applause for badges centres around the idea of motivation. Some authors believe that badges are motivating students because of its playful nature. However, there are concerns about the well-documented negative consequences of extrinsic incentive on intrinsic motivation and free choice engagement. Therefore, some authors argue that we should not use badges to motivate learning. However, Hickey (2012b, para. 7) notes, that if we use badges to recognize and assess learning, they are likely to impact motivation.

(4)

Evaluating learning – badges have enormous potential for helping teachers, schools, and programs evaluate and explore learning. Each badge has eight bits of information (“metadata”) which will be recorded and easily accessible as a database (Hickey, 2012b, para. 8).

2.6 What are the advantages of Open Badges?

It is believed that Open Badges offer several advantages for learners, teachers, peers and potential employers. Open Badges can be given for several reasons, for example, to recognize, verify, validate, motivate, evaluate or study learning. Next, an overview of the advantages of open badges for learners, teachers and employers are described as discussed in the literature. Open Badges enable to:

•

recognize informal learning (Abramovich et al., 2013) and ‘soft skills’ such as leadership, collaborative skills, critical thinking, problem solving, decision-making, time management, imagination, innovation, initiative, communication, independence (Davidson, 2011) or new skills and literacies such as digital, media and visual literacies. Open Badges can capture more specific skills that might otherwise go unrecognized through formal academic processes, and capture the learning path and history and give a more holistic, accurate picture of educational achievement of the learner in comparison to traditional degrees or certificates (Mozilla Foundation, 2012; Ash, 2012; Dyjur & Lindstrom, 2017);

•

verify and communicate concrete evidence and proof of skills, achievements and success to potential employers, professional networks, educational organizations and communities (Dyjur & Lindstrom, 2017). The opportunity to present work and skills to the employer is a new experience in non-formal learning with people who are trying to promote and present themselves (Goligoski, 2012);

•

find and hire suitable employees for an employer, find people and communities with similar interests. Although the indexing and referencing program for badge credentials is still under development, it is possible in the future easily find certification organizations and courses. Such a directory would be necessary, in particular, for the user to search by subject for the issuer and qualification (Goligoski, 2012);

•

monitor and support learning – teachers receive information about the student’s results and achievements that helps support learning (Dyjur & Lindstrom, 2017; Goligoski, 2012), facilitate individualized and multiple learning pathways, particularly critical for professional learning development in fields that are rapidly changing and where formal programs may not be in step with emerging trends, technologies and practices (Ash, 2012; Dyjur & Lindstrom, 2017); badges also allow to promote specific types of student behaviours (McDaniel et al., 2012);

•

motivate participation, learning, behaviours and achievement of learning outcomes; badges provide feedback, milestones and rewards throughout a course or learning experience, encouraging engagement and retention, as well as reinforcing a sense of achievement (Abramovich et al., 2013; Dyjur & Lindstrom, 2017; Goligoski, 2012);

•

enhance identity and reputation – badges raise the learner’s profile with the learning community and peers, giving the individual control over their online identity and reflect ongoing professional growth (Elkordy, 2012);

•

provide branding opportunities and increase awareness of organizations and learning communities, being valuable to issuing institutions from a marketing perspective (Dyjur & Lindstrom, 2017).

Thus, Open Badges can transfer learning across spaces and contexts and make skills more portable across jobs, learning environments and places. They move faster to support and recognize new skills than traditional degree or certificate programs (Dyjur & Lindstrom, 2017).

Elkordy (2012, para. 13) notes that “well designed, robust badges can be associated with important principles of learning and motivation of particular interest to educators because of their potential for deep and lasting knowledge”: for example, contextual learning situations (situated learning and cognition); scaffolding through learning trajectories; socially constructed/mediated learning; participatory learning; motivational and interest learning; formative and summative assessment; creation of ‘visible’ learning paths which encourage reflection, self-regulation and autonomy and building of self-esteem and self-efficacy.

2.7 Badge design patterns

Teachers need guidelines on how to effectively implement and sustain badge systems in higher education (Carey, 2017). Wills and Xie (2016) present a range of related theories that could support the design of Open Badges, including enabling learning autonomy and personalization from the self-regulated learning perspective, goal setting, and pertinent motivating factors found in digital games. The culmination of these theories is then presented as a comprehensive framework. Casilli (2012) provides seven ways of looking at a badge system and its design which includes philosophical, conceptual, pedagogical, visual/aesthetic, technical, categorical and ownership aspects. She notes that it is not an exhaustive list by any means, but it is simply an opportunity to unpack our influences and perceptions as we begin the process of designing badge systems. According to Põldoja and Laanpere (2014, p. 173) four potential emerging badge design patterns can be identified:

(1)

Composite badges can be achieved by completing multiple assignments.

(2)

Activity-based badges can be awarded automatically based on measurable learning activities.

(3)

Grade-based badges are based on the grades that the learners have received, for example, ‘Bronze’, ‘Silver’ and ‘Gold’ badges.

(4)

Hierarchical badges are divided into several levels, some of which may be composite badges based on lower level badges.

As badges are open and interoperable, then everybody can use whatever technologies they need and utilize badging in whatever way suits their own community of badge earners (Badges/FAQs, n.d.). There are many organizations who have created infrastructure to support the use of badges, and to create, distribute and support the circulation of open badges for both individuals and organizations. For example, Acclaim, Badgecraft, BadgeOS, Badgr, Bestr, Credly, ForAllRubrics, MOUSE Create, Open Badge Factory, P2PU Badges, ProExam Vault, RedCritter are some examples of the platforms available to support badge system development and deployment.

2.8 Disadvantages and challenges of using Open Badges

There are both supportive and critical opinions on the use of open badges in education. Several authors (Ash, 2012; Resnick, 2012) express concern related to motivation in earning badges. The main argument is that students will focus on accumulation of badges (extrinsic motivation) rather than on the process of learning (intrinsic motivation). There is also fear that badges run the risk of contributing to the ‘gamification’ of education or bring too much structure and hierarchy to learning that is not inherent in informal learning (Ash, 2012). Some authors express concern how meaningful badges can become if any organization is allowed to give them out for any reason (Ash, 2012) and quality and status inevitably vary from one badge to another (Davidson, 2011) while many badges may not be designed well from an instructional design perspective, and do not guide learning effectively for a learner (Ahn et al., 2014). Ahn et al. (2014), highlight new challenges of educating individuals to design badges that effectively scaffold learning. Glover and Latif (2013) argue that badges may not appear as credible to potential employers as a paper credential from a recognized higher education institutions. Halavais (2012) just concludes that if badges are poorly applied, they will be bad and if used well, they can lead to peer learning and authentic assessment.

2.9 Studies on the use of Open Badges in education

There is a shortage of empirical research in peer-reviewed sources on the use of open and digital badges (Grant, 2016), although few earlier empirical studies (Gamrat et al., 2014; Willis et al., 2016; Abramovich et al., 2013) have been conducted. Much of the existing literature primarily discusses badges in terms of motivation in formal and informal learning environments (Abramovich et al., 2013; Goligoski, 2012; Reid et al., 2015; Anderson et al., 2013; Farzan et al., 2008). However, there are concerns about the negative consequences of extrinsic incentive on intrinsic motivation and free choice engagement. Research results indicate that learners’ knowle- dge level, the learner type and prior motivation is related to the types of badges they pursue. For example, the study by Abramovich et al. (2013) indicated that the type and purpose of the badge will impact motivation and learning. They found that badges impact both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and that the effects of badges vary across learner ability, prior knowledge level, and badge design. Badges awarded for participation were less meaningful than skill-based badges. Santos et al. (2013) found that students appreciated such badges much higher which supported the achievement of learning outcomes. They appreciated more those badges that were related to quality than quantity. They rated higher group badges compared to individual badges and attempts were made to avoid achieving negative badges.

Chou and He (2016) conducted a study in a graduate program for teacher education in order to explore the effect of badges on student participation and interaction. The researchers found that badges increased student interaction, although it did not significantly impact participation.

Only a few studies reported that they integrated badges into the course’s formal grading system. One study concluded that badges should be optional based on students’ negative comments (Haaranen et al., 2014). Another study found that badges had a positive influence on lecture attendance, but student grades were not significantly improved (Nah et al., 2014).

Botički et al. (2014) identified types of learner according to the way they interact with digital badges: badge hunters, sharers and dodgers. Badge hunters were only interested in attaining high levels of badges and they only responded to extrinsic motivation and did not care about quality of contributions, whereas sharers were interested in sharing with their peers while earning their badges and their participation was more consistent and with higher quality, and dodgers had no interest in earning badges at all. In another study Botički et al. (2015) also added an explorer type that was an ideal category. Explorers participated actively by generating high quality contributions, sharing their observations, initiating conversations with other students and were trying to gain knowledge collaboratively from their peers; they usually obtained a very high number of badges.

In the context of higher education, interest in using Open Badges is increasing. However, there is still debate in the literature as to whether open and digital badges are effective pedagogical tools and for what purpose they are best suited, such as rewards, incentives, assessment, or skill recognition (Grant, 2016).

2.10 Use of Open Badges in library and information science

Although Open Badges have gained popularity around the world and have become a standard feature of many LMSs, they are not discussed in the literature by library and information science educators. Searches in the Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar databases did not reveal any articles from LIS educators. Few authors have briefly mentioned the terms open badges or digital badges in their articles, but there is no any discussion of how these have been used in education (Kaushik & Kumar, 2017; Fontain, 2018; Göretz et al., 2018). At the same time, however, it is a rather important topic for librarians. Public libraries and library associations, parti- cularly in the United States, have been the earliest adopters of badges, and have led innovation in this area (Rutherford et al., 2015). For example, the Young Adult Library Services Association (YALSA) received funding in 2012 to develop a virtual badge program for a library staff with skills related to the competencies for serving youth in libraries. Project funding was provided by three of the key players in the digital badge landscape: HASTAC, the Mozilla Foundation, and the MacArthur Foundation (Frederiksen, 2013). Rodgers and Puterbaugh (2017) describe how digital badges are used in the library instructional programs in the Eastern University Library’s. There are also articles on the use of digital badges for information literacy at Middlesex University and creating pre-arrival support for international students at Coventry University (Rose, n.d.). The Australian National University Library designed an INSIGNIA project to support research candidates in the development of key transferable skills around digital literacy and research integrity, using open badges (Rutherford et al., 2015). O’Brien and Jacobson (2018) have even published a book “Teaching with Digital Badges: Best Practices for Libraries” which provides examples of how librarians are using badges to enhance and invigorate the teaching and assessment of information literacy. However, Hall-Ellis (2016, p. 234) notes that “Although the library and information profession recognizes the importance of technical skills and core competencies, the adoption of stackable micro-credentials (e.g. digital badges) as evidence of advanced learning and professional development has remained minimal”.