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

Abstract

This paper discusses the planning and implementation of Open Badges in library and information science education at Tallinn University in order to foster and personalise student learning. The first part of the paper gives an overview of the concept and nature of Open Badges through a review of literature, the second describes the use of Open Badges in the Study Area of Information Sciences of the School of Digital Technologies at Tallinn University.

The course used four types of open badges in the assessment process: basic knowledge badges, advanced knowledge badges, skill based badges and level based badges. Open Badges were directly linked to the learning outcomes and formal grading system of the course.

Based on recent experience, it can be said that Open Badges are valuable tools in the assessment process which will give a more holistic picture of educational achievement of the learner. Multiple learning pathways within the course provided learners opportunities to choose their personal learning path according to their personal learning goals, learning style, interests and other preferences. Open Badges also allowed to recognize ‘soft skills’ or literacies. Open Badges could be also a useful tool to assess students’ information literacies in different contexts.

Keywords

Open Badges digital badges credentials assessment library and information science higher education educational technology

1. Introduction

Educators around the world are changing the way they think about learning, teaching and assessment in the digital environment, as well as the theories and practices related to making claims about learning based on digital evidence; three elements have combined to form new digital pathways for learning: (1) self-organizing learning groups, (2) open badges, and (3) changing conceptions of higher education (Gibson et al., 2016, p. 115).

This paper discusses the planning and implementation of Open Badges in library and information science (LIS) education at Tallinn University (TU) in order to foster and personalise student learning. The first part gives an overview of the concept and nature of Open Badges, the second describes the use of Open Badges in the Study Area of Information Sciences (SAIS) of the School of Digital Technologies of TU.

2. Literature review

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”.

3. Implementation of Open Badges in LIS education at Tallinn University

From the middle of the 1990s there has been an attempt at the Department of Information Studies (since September 2015 SAIS of the School of Digital Technologies) at TU to improve and innovate traditional education as well as to provide new and alternative learning opportunities. The department has experimented with ICT-based teaching and learning methods and tools since 1994: for example, the first e-learning course was delivered for school librarians in 1996 (Virkus, 1997), the use of video/audio-conferencing possibilities to support cross-border learning and communication started in 1998 (Virkus & Sponberg, 1999), LMSs are used since 2001 both for delivering online learning as well as supporting face-to-face learning, and the Information Management Online Master was opened in 2003 (Virkus, 2008).

With the launch of the international joint Master Programme Digital Library Learning (DILL) in 2007, the blended model of learning became dominant and a number of new technological tools were introduced and integrated into coursework: e-portfolios, wikis, blogs, RSS, YouTube videos, audio and video podcasts, online diaries, Skype, cross-country teaching and learning and social networking tools (Virkus, 2008). As for specific course material, the DILL programme successfully used incentives such as BeSt1

¹
BeSt was a programme in Estonian HE that was implemented in 2008–2013 and supported the deve- lopment of e-learning.

to foster the development of open educational resources (OER) to support course delivery. As such, there are over 20 programme-specific learning objects with systematically and originally developed content that is fully available online, for example “Framework for information and knowledge management”, “Information culture”, “Knowledge management infrastructure”, “The concept of leadership”, “Knowledge management and learning: finding, evaluating and selecting materials”, “The Issues of Social Networking Tools”, etc. These OERs have given students an opportunity to work with the major concepts of the course at their own pace and explore the interactive educational material to the extent they wish. They have also provided teachers opportunities to spend class time in a new and challenging way and to focus on necessary aspects of the teaching processes. SAIS has also experimented a flipped or inverted classroom model and integrated MOOCs into the courses to enrich students’ learning experience. Currently, we are exploring the affordances of learning analytics, gamification and open badges.

The use of Open Badges was first piloted in spring 2018 in the master level course on research methods in order to understand what it means for a teacher and students to use badges in the assessment process and what skills are required from the teacher.

In the pilot three types of badges were designed: basic knowledge badges, social skills badges and advanced knowledge badges. The second use of open badges was implemented in the bachelor level course “Information Retrieval and Data Mining” in the autumn term 2018. The main aim of using badges was to make the course more interesting and motivate learners to acquire new knowledge and skills. The implementation of open badges was inspired by earlier work of my colleagues from the School of Digital Technologies of TU (Põldoja & Laanpere, 2014; Põldoja et al., 2016).

After exploring various digital badge platforms and design tools the decision was made to use Moodle as a delivery platform for Open Badges. Moodle has built-in support for Open Badges since version 2.5, which allows the teacher to issue badges directly through Moodle. In addition, students of TU were already familiar with the Moodle platform as most of the information science courses are supported by Moodle. Currently we are using Moodle version 3.5.2.

Moodle badges may be awarded based on a variety of criteria chosen by the teacher. Badges can be awarded at the site level or course level. Site-level badges allow for institutional collaboration (e.g. the completion of a set of courses) on a set of common standards for awarding badges, while course level badges can allow individual teachers or course facilitators to set their own standards for acknowledgment and they can award badges for tasks specific to the course.

Moodle offers a central repository to manage and distribute badges. Teachers can upload their own images as badges or get them from a site such as Badges for Your Moodle (http://moodlebadges.com) or from other design tools. When a teacher creates an Open Badge in Moodle, there are design restrictions such as the type of image allowed (only .jpg and .png are allowed), and once uploaded badges are cropped and resized if necessary. The badges for the pilot and “Information Retrieval and Data Mining” course were designed using the Openbadges.me (https://www. openbadges.me/) Graphic Library design tool. Openbadges.me is an online service that lets the user design, award, manage and display digital credentials and badges, with support for free and enterprise options.

Badges designed in the Openbadges.me were transferred to the Moodle where the teacher added the badge name and description to the image file as well as a duration of as long the badge is valid, configured the criteria to be used, and finally gave the badges to students. A notification was sent to the students by Moodle when they had been awarded a badge. It can be accompanied by an e-mail message. The teacher can see from the recipient list of who and when received the badge. Badges created and earned in Moodle may be displayed on a student’s profile or send to the Mozilla Backpack from the Moodle and shared with the outside world.

The course “Information Retrieval and Data Mining” was offered for 16 bachelor students of information sciences in the third year of their study. It was a 5-credit blended learning course delivered from September to December 2018. Students had both classroom meetings as well as learning activities that took place in an online environment in the Moodle. The course was divided into six Modules (topics), each lasting two weeks: 1) Datafied Society and Data Cultures; 2) Nature and Basic Concepts of Information Retrieval and Data Mining. Information Retrieval and Data Mining as Research Areas; 3) Techniques and Methods for Information Retrieval and Data Mining. Web Data Mining; 4) Data Analytics. Bibliomining; 5) Application of Data Mining in Different Fields; 6) Current Issues of Information Retrieval and Data Mining.

The online part of the course included Module Assignments that students had to present either in their individual blogs or in the Moodle environment. The teacher presented in the Moodle assignments, lecture notes, reading materials both for beginners and advanced learners as well as links to OERs, video material and additional resources. Each Module had an assignment related to the topic of the Module. Students had to work through materials and complete Module assignments and participate in the classroom activities and discussions on the subject of each Module.

In addition to the module assignments, students had to complete an assignment according to their chosen learning pathway. Seven learning pathways were designed: Researcher, Practitioner, Bibliographer, Bibliominer, Bibliometrist, Wikipedist and Enlightener. Researcher had to write a literature review, Practitioner had to develop data analysis and forecasting models using freeware software solutions, Bibliographer had to compile an annotated bibliography, Bibliometrist had to compile a bibliometric analysis of publishing activity, Bibliominer had to provide an analysis of the integration of bibliometric and data mining techniques in library services, Wikipedist had to write Wikipedia articles, and Enlightener had to introduce new data mining or information retrieval technology, method or tool. These profiles or learning pathways were related to the course topics. The results of the assignments according to the chosen learning pathway were presented to the class during the course meetings for discussion and learners themselves were involved in the assessment process.

Having multiple learning pathways within a course allows learners to choose their personal learning path according to their personal learning goals, learning style, interests and other preferences. However, learners should still be able to achieve the same learning outcomes presented in the course description (Põldoja et al., 2016, p. 41).

It was also decided that Open Badges should be directly linked to the learning outcomes and formal grading system of the course. The “Information Retrieval and Data Mining” course has six subject related learning outcomes. In addition, the students should develop teamwork, discussion, presentation and analysing skills and information competencies.

Multiple levels of badges were introduced in the course:

Basic knowledge badges. The learners were able to earn a basic knowledge badge in each module. In order to earn the badge, the learner has to do an individual assignment in each Module and actively participate in the class discussion and group work related to the topic. The student only received the badge if his/her results corresponded to the following grades of the assessment system: “excellent”, “very good” and “good”.

Skill based badges were associated with various social skills. Ten skill based badges were designed: information literate, analyser, orator, disputant, team worker, leader, holist, reflector, innovator and reviewer. Five of them were directly related to the course learning outcomes and five badges were designed in order to recognize some other exceptional skills.

Advanced knowledge badges were related to the personal learning path. The aim was to develop a badge system that supports learners with different learning styles. Thus, learners were able to earn one of the seven advanced knowledge badges for choosing the individual learning path: Researcher, Practitioner, Enlightener, Wikipedist, Bibliographer, Bibliominer or Bibliometrist. However, the student only received the badge if his/her results corresponded to the following grades of the assessment system: “excellent”, “very good” and “good”.

Level based badges – “Gold”, “Silver”, and “Bronze” – directly reflected the formal grading system of the course.

Altogether, the badge system consisted of 26 badges. All the badges were awarded based on the teacher’s assessment of the assignments, group work, discussions and presentations.

The concept of badge points was used for grading and the “weight” of the badge was specified similar to Põldoja et al. (2016). Each of the basic knowledge badges was worth 10 points. Advanced badges according to the chosen learning pathway had different “weight” – 30–10 points: Researcher (30 points), Practitioner (24 points), Bibliographer (24 points), Bibliometrist (24 points), Bibliominer (24 points), Wikipedist (20 points), Enlightener (10 points). Learners were also able to earn skill based badges described earlier and each of them was worth two points.

Final grades of the course were calculated based on the weight of the acquired badges:

•

A (excellent) – a prominent and especially broad level of achievement of learning outcomes, the weight of acquired Open Badges is at least 91 points;

•

B (very good) – achievement of very good level of learning outcomes, the weight of acquired Open Badges is at least 81–90 points;

•

C (good) – achievement of high-quality learning outcomes, weight of acquired Open Badges is 71–80 points;

•

D (satisfactory) – achievement of sufficient level of learning outcomes, weight of acquired Open Badges is 61–70 points;

•

E (poor) – achievement of the most important learning outcomes at the minimum acceptable level, weight of acquired Open Badges is 51–60 points;

•

F (failed) – the learner has acquired knowledge and skills at a lower level than the minimum level, weight of acquired Open Badges is less than 51 points.

Bronze level badge required to achieve the grade “good”, silver level badge “very good” and gold level badge “excellent”. It was decided not to give badges for moderate or weak results and to avoid broken badges (e.g. being late with submitting assignments or being inactive in class discussions or group work). However, while the student did not get “Bronze”, “Silver” or “Gold” final badge, she/he was still able to earn some basic knowledge badges, skill based badges or badges based on the personal learning path. For example, in order to receive grade A, the student had several pathways:

to achieve six basic knowledge badges (60 points), one advanced badges (e.g. researcher – 30 points) and at least one high level social skill (e.g. team worker – 2 points);

to achieve six basic knowledge badges (60 points), three advanced badges (e.g. enlightener – 3 $\times$ 10 points) and at least one high level social skill (e.g. analyser – 2 points);

to achieve six basic knowledge badges (60 points), one advanced badges (e.g. practitioner – 24 points) and at least three high level of social skills (e.g. information literate, analyser, orator).

It should be said that students chose all seven profiles, but the enlightener and the practitioner were the most popular. Mostly bronze, silver and golden badges were awarded as well as badges for social skills. The students were very active and hard-working and achieved successfully the learning outcomes of this course. An increase in student engagement in discussions, group work as well as class participation was noticed.

Learner’s feedback about the use of Open Badges in the course assessment process was collected through focus group and individual interviews. The focus group was arranged with six students and individual interviews with two students. The interview topics included students’ prior knowledge of open badges, their interest in earning open badges, suitability of badges in the assessment process, impact of open badges to learner’s engagement and motivation, the opportunities for several learning paths as well as an assessment of various soft skills.

Students received well the use of Open Badges in the assessment process in this course. Feedback from the students showed, that the use of Open Badges was interesting and enjoyable for them and made the course more inspiring and effective. They highly appreciated the opportunity to choose a personal learning pathway and plan their own learning finding assignments that interested them the most; they considered it the most motivating aspect of this course. They thought that there were enough options of learning paths to choose between. They also felt that the badges encouraged them to contribute more actively in the class discussions, group work and participate in the class meetings. Learners also highlighted the value of badges that were provided to acknowledge their social skills. There seemed to be a bit of healthy competition between students as they compared the number of badges they received.

However, from a teacher’s perspective, the application of badges as an assessment tool in education is not a simple process. As several authors have pointed out, the use of badges as a reward and assessment tool will take time and efforts to effectively plan and implement it in the assessment process.

4. Concluding remarks

This paper gave an overview of the concept and nature of Open Badges through a review of literature. The application of Open Badges in the Study Area of Information Sciences of the School of Digital Technologies at Tallinn University was introduced. Based on recent experience, it can be said that Open Badges are valuable tools in the assessment process which will give a more holistic picture of educational achievement of the learner. Multiple learning pathways within a course will provide learners opportunities to choose their personal learning path according to their personal learning goals, learning style, interests and other preferences. Students who attended this course considered it as the most motivating aspect of the course. Open badges also allow to recognize ‘soft skills’ such as leadership, collaboration, critical thinking, problem solving, time management, imagination, innovation, initiative, communication or literacies such as digital, media and information literacies. Thus, open badges could be also useful tool to assess students’ information literacies in different contexts.

References

Abramovich,

Schunn,

, & Higashi,

R.M.

(2013). Are badges useful in education? It depends upon the type of badge and the expertise of the learner. Educational Technology Research and Development, 61(2), 217-232.

Ahn,

Pellicone,

, & Butler,

(2014). Open badges for education: What are the implications at the intersection of open systems and badging? Research in Learning Technology,22, 235-263.

Anderson,

Huttenlocher,

Kleinberg,

, & Leskovec,

(2013, May). Steering user behaviour with badges. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on World Wide Web. ACM. pp. 95-106.

Ash,

(2012, June 13). “Digital Badges” would represent students’ skill acquisition. Education Week: Digital Directions. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/dd/articles/2012/06/13/03badges.h05.html?tkn=ORSF1.

Badges/FAQs. (n.d.) Retrieved from https://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges/FAQs.

Botički,

Baksa,

Seow,

, & Looi,

C.K.

(2015). Usage of a mobile social learning platform with virtual badges in a primary school. Computers & Education, 86, 120-136.

Botički,

Seow,

Looi,

C.K.

, & Baksa,

(2014, January). How can badges be used in seamless mobile learning. In Bristol Ideas in Mobile Learning 2014 Conference. Retrieved from https://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/691936.BIIML14_SamEx_paper_final.pdf.

Bowen,

(2013). Open badges anatomy [Web log Class Hack post]. Retrieved from http://classhack.com/post/45364649211/open-badge-anatomy-updated/.

Carey,

K.L.

(2017). An analysis of factors that impact diffusion and adoption of Digital Badges (Doctoral dissertation). Old Dominion University, United States. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/stemps_etds/25.

10.

Casilli,

(2012, May 20). Badge system design: Seven ways of looking at a badge system. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://carlacasilli.wordpress.com/2012/05/20/badge-system-design-seven-ways-of-looking-at-a-badge-system/.

11.

Chou,

C.C.

, & He,

S.-J.

(2016). The effectiveness of digital badges on student online contributions. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 54(8), 1092-1116.

12.

Davidson,

C.N.

(2011, March 21). Why badges work better than grades. HASTAC. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://hastac.org/blogs/cathy-davidson/why-badges-work-better-grades.

13.

Devedzic,

(2016). Open Badges in education. Open Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.openeducationweek.org/events/open-badges-in-education.

14.

Dyjur,

, & Lindstrom,

(2017). Perceptions and uses of digital badges for professional learning development in higher education. TechTrends, 61, 386-392.

15.

Elkordy,

(2012, October 24). The future is now: Unpacking digital badging and micro-credentialing for K-20 educators. HASTAC. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.hastac.org/blogs/angela-elkordy/2012/10/24/future-now-unpacking-digital-badging-and-micro-credentialing-k-20.

16.

Farzan,

DiMicco,

J.M.

Millen,

D.R.

Dugan,

Geyer,

, & Brownholtz,

E.A.

(2008, April). Results from deploying a participation incentive mechanism within the enterprise. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM. pp. 563-572.

17.

Frederiksen,

(2013). Digital badges. Public Services Quarterly, 9(4), 321-325.

18.

Fontain,

(2018). Information professionals taking charge of their career: attitudes and tools to sail safely on the sea of digital revolution. In Aparac-Jelušicć,

Casarosa,

Macevičiūte,

(Eds.), The Future of Education in Information Science, Proceedings from FEIS – International EINFOSE Symposium 10–11 September 2018 Pisa, Italy. Pisa. pp. 62-73.

19.

Gamrat,

Zimmerman,

H.T.

Dudek,

, & Peck,

(2014). Personalized workplace learning: An exploratory study on digital badging within a teacher professional development program. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(6), 1136-1148.

20.

Gibson,

Coleman,

, & Irving,

(2016). Learning journeys in higher education: Designing digital pathways badges for learning, motivation and assessment. In Ifenthaler,

Bellin-Mularski,

Mah,

D.K.

(Eds.), Foundation of Digital Badges and Micro-Credentials. New York, NY: Springer. pp. 115-138.

21.

Glover,

, & Latif,

(2013). Investigating perceptions and potential of open badges in formal higher education. In Herrington,

Couros,

Irvine,

(Eds.), Proceedings of EdMedia: World Conference on Educational Media and Technology. pp. 1398-1402.

22.

Goligoski,

(2012). Motivating the learner: Mozilla’s Open Badges program. Access to Knowledge, 4(1). Retrieved from http://ojs.stanford.edu/ojs/index.php/a2k/article/viewFile/381/207.

23.

Grant,

S.L.

(2016). History and context of open digital badges. In Muilenburg,

L.Y.

Berge,

Z.L.

(Eds.), Digital Badges in Education: Trends, Issues and Cases. New York, NY: Routledge. pp. 17-25.

24.

Göretz,

Meschede,

Witte,

, & Knautz,

(2018). Enhancing e-learning experiences in higher education: Implementation of QR Codes in a gamified environment. In Aparac-Jelušicć,

Casarosa,

Macevičiūte,

(Eds.), The Future of Education in Information Science, Proceedings from FEIS – International EINFOSE Symposium 10–11 September 2018 Pisa, Italy. Pisa. pp. 74-85.

25.

Haaranen,

Ihantola,

Hakulinen,

, & Korhonen,

(2014, March). How (not) to introduce badges to online exercises. In Proceedings of the 45th ACM technical symposium on Computer Science Education. ACM. pp. 33-38.

26.

Halavais,

(2012, June 3). Badges: The sceptical evangelist [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://alex.halavais.net/badges-the-skeptical-evangelist.

27.

Hall-Ellis,

S.D.

(2016). Stackable micro-credentials – a framework for the future. The Bottom Line, 29(4), 233-236.

28.

Hickey,

D.T.

(2012a, March 18). Some things about assessment that badge developers might find helpful. HASTAC. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.hastac.org/blogs/dthickey/2012/03/18/some-things-about-assessment-badge-developers-might-find-helpful.

29.

Hickey,

D.T.

(2012b, September 11). Intended purposes versus actual function of digital badges. Re-Mediating Assessment. HASTAC. [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.hastac.org/blogs/dthickey/2012/09/11/intended-purposes-versus-actual-function-digital-badges.

30.

James,

, & Bossu,

(2014). Conversations from south of the equator: Challenges and opportunities in OER across broader Oceania. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 11(3), 78-90.

31.

Joseph,

(2012, June 25). Six ways to look at badging systems designed for learning. Online Leadership Program: Global Kids [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.olpglobalkids.org/content/six-ways-look-badging-systems-designed-learning.

32.

Kaushik,

, & Kumar,

(2017). Designing Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) in library and information science. International Journal of Information Dissemination and Technology, 7(1), 49-53.

33.

Liyanagunawardena,

T.R.

Scalzavara,

, & Williams,

S.A.

(2017). Open Badges: A systematic review of peer-reviewed published literature (2011–2015). European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 20(2), 1-16.

34.

McDaniel,

Lindgren,

, & Friskics,

(2012, October). Using badges for shaping interactions in online learning environments. In Professional Communication Conference (IPCC), 2012 IEEE International. IEEE. pp. 1-4.

35.

Moodie,

(2011, October 2011). Digital “badges” proposed as alternative way to assess skills. EdSource. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2011/digital-badges-proposed-as-alternative-way-to-assess-skills/2475.

36.

Mozilla (2019). Why Open Badges? Retrieved from https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/why-open-badges.

37.

Mozilla Foundation, Peer 2 Peer University, MacArthur Foundation (2012). Open Badges for lifelong learning: Exploring an open badge ecosystem to support skill development and lifelong learning for real results such as jobs and advancement. Working Document. Retrieved from https://wiki.mozilla.org/images/5/59/OpenBadges-Working-Paper_012312.pdf.

38.

Nah,

F.F.H.

Zeng,

Telaprolu,

V.R.

Ayyappa,

A.P.

, & Eschenbrenner,

(2014, June). Gamification of education: a review of literature. In International Conference on HCI in Business. New York, NY: Springer. pp. 401-409.

39.

O’Brien,

, & Jacobson,

T.E.

(Eds.) (2018). Teaching with digital badges: Best practices for libraries (Innovations in Information Literacy). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

40.

Openbadges.me (2018). Getting Started with Using Open Badges. Retrieved from http://www.openbadges.me.

41.

O’Shaughnessy,

(2011, October 3). Forget the college degree: earn digital badges instead. CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/forget-the-college-degree-earn-digital-badges-instead/.

42.

Põldoja,

Jürgens,

, & Laanpere,

(2016, October). Design patterns for badge systems in higher education. In International Conference on Web-Based Learning. New York, NY: Springer. pp. 40-49.

43.

Põldoja,

, & Laanpere,

(2014). Exploring the Potential of Open Badges in Blog-Based University Courses. In Cao,

Väljataga,

Tang,

J.K.T.

Leung,

Laanpere,

(Eds.), New Horizons in Web Based Learning: ICWL 2014 International Workshops, SPeL, PRASAE, IWMPL, OBIE, and KMEL, FET, Tallinn, Estonia, August 14–17, 2014, Revised Selected. pp. 172-178. Springer International Publishing.

44.

Rajabi,

, & Virkus,

(2017). The potential and readiness of Tallinn University to establish massive open online courses (MOOCs). Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in Libraries, 2(4), 431-439.

45.

Randall,

D.L.

Harrison,

J.B.

, & West,

R.E.

(2013). Giving credit where credit is due: Designing open badges for a technology integration course. TechTrends, 57(6), 88-95.

46.

Reid,

A.J.

Paster,

, & Abramovich,

(2015). Digital badges in undergraduate composition courses: Effects on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Computers in Education, 2(4), 377-398.

47.

Resnick,

(2012). Still a badge sceptic. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://hastac.org/blogs/mres/2012/02/27/still-badge-skeptic.

48.

Rodgers,

A.R.

, & Puterbaugh,

(2017) Digital badges and library instructional programs: Academic library case study. Journal of Electronic Resources Librarianship, 29(4), 236-244.

49.

Rose,

(n.d.). Editorial sconul. Focus, 67, 3-4. Retrieved from https://www.sconul.ac.uk/sites/default/files/documents/1_22.pdf.

50.

Rutherford,

Freund,

, & Mewburn,

(2015). Badging the library: Are digital badges the next innovation for library skills and training? Retrieved from https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/13234/3/Rutherford%20et%20al%20Badging%20the%20library%202015.pdf.

51.

Santos,

J.L.

Charleer,

Parra,

Klerkx,

Duval,

, & Verbert,

(2013). Evaluating the use of open badges in an open learning environment. In European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. pp. 314-327.

52.

Stagg,

, & Bossu,

(2016). Educational policy and open educational practice in Australian higher education. In Blessinger,

Bliss,

T.J.

(Eds.), Open Education: International Perspectives in Higher Education. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers. pp. 115-137.

53.

Virkus,

(1997). Distance education as a new possibility for librarians in Estonia. Information Research, 2(4). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/2-4/paper20.html.

54.

Virkus,

(2008). Use of Web 2.0 Technologies in LIS Education: Experiences at Tallinn University. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 42(3), 262-274.

55.

Virkus,

Sponberg,

(1999). Collaborative Learning and Teaching: Co-operation between Estonia and Norway. In Proceedings of the ENABLE99. Enabling Network-Based Learning, International Conference, Espoo-Vantaa Institute of Technology (EVITech), June 2–5, 1999, pp. 69-74. Espoo, Finland: Espoo – Vantaa institute of Technology.

56.

Watters,

(2011a, August 10). Mozilla’s Open Badges project: A new way to recognize learning. MindShift. Retrieved from https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/14421/mozillas-open-badges-project-a-new-way-to-recognize-learning.

57.

Watters,

(2011b, September 8). Master a new skill? Here’s your badge. O’Reilly Radar. Retrieved from http://radar.oreilly.com/2011/09/open-badges-project-learning-education.html.

58.

Willis,

J.E.

Flintoff,

, & McGraw,

(2016). A philosophy of open digital badges. In Ifenthaler,

Bellin-Mularski,

Mah,

D.K.

(Eds.), Foundation of Digital Badges and Micro-Credentials. New York, NY: Springer. pp. 23-40.

59.

Wills,

, & Xie,

(2016) Toward a comprehensive theoretical framework for designing digital badges. In Ifenthaler,

Bellin-Mularski,

Mah,

D.K.

(Eds.), Foundation of Digital Badges and Micro-Credentials. New York, NY: Springer.

60.

Yuan,

, & Powell,

(2013). MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265297666_MOOCs_and_Open_Education_Implications_for_Higher_Education.

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

Abstract

Keywords

1. Introduction

2. Literature review

2.1 What are Open or Digital Badges?

2.2 Open Badges as innovation in higher education

2.3 Goals and roles of Open Badges

2.4 Characteristics of Open Badges

2.9 Studies on the use of Open Badges in education

2.10 Use of Open Badges in library and information science

3. Implementation of Open Badges in LIS education at Tallinn University

1 BeSt was a programme in Estonian HE that was implemented in 2008–2013 and supported the deve- lopment of e-learning.

References

¹
BeSt was a programme in Estonian HE that was implemented in 2008–2013 and supported the deve- lopment of e-learning.