Closed
Bug 1018880
Opened 10 years ago
Closed 10 years ago
Come up with criteria for 15 Web Literacy competency badges
Categories
(Webmaker Graveyard :: webmaker.org, defect)
Tracking
(Not tracked)
RESOLVED
FIXED
People
(Reporter: doug, Assigned: doug, NeedInfo)
References
Details
(Whiteboard: [badges] [june13])
Attachments
(1 file)
44.41 KB,
image/png
|
Details |
No description provided.
Comment 1•10 years ago
|
||
* Doug: this seems like way too much to take on. * We just need criteria for *three* badges: Remix, Privacy, Coding & Scripting
Comment 2•10 years ago
|
||
These three: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1015207 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1015206 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1015204
Comment 3•10 years ago
|
||
* can we mark this one wontfix? And just work through the three above?
Whiteboard: [june13]
Updated•10 years ago
|
Flags: needinfo?(doug)
Assignee | ||
Comment 4•10 years ago
|
||
Actually, the coming up with the criteria isn't the hard part. It's the community engagement, telling the story, and getting feedback. :-) ----- I propose one of the following: Option 1: Go with just the Participation badges (i.e. Mentor and Super Mentor) for Maker Party. Web Literacy badges would then be a deliverable from the Badge Alliance working group for September: https://badgealliance.etherpad.mozilla.org/ba-dig-web-literacy Option 2: Along with Participation badges, come up with all 15 Web Literacy competency badges and explicitly label them 'beta'. Allow people to pledge for them during Maker Party, and encourage both Mentor and Super Mentors to issue. Option 3: Go with 3 Web Literacy competency badges (one from each strand - Exploring, Building, Connecting) and make them the best we can. Then focus on the next 3. ----- The problem with Option 3 (which is what I hear you're proposing, Matt) is that I'm concerned it won't work as well from a community engagement / buy-in perspective.
Flags: needinfo?(doug)
Comment 5•10 years ago
|
||
* +1 for option 3 * I think we should just pick whatever 3 we think are going to be most popular. I think those are ** Privacy (hot topic + aligns with larger Mozilla campaigns) ** Remix (popular. good content) ** Coding & Scripting (people want some version of "teach me how to code") * not sure what the community engagement / buy-in blocker is? We're just saying: let's start with 3. instead of 15. and try them out this summer.
Flags: needinfo?(michelle)
Comment 6•10 years ago
|
||
* @ Doug: thinking about this some more + talking with Chris. * Ok, you changed my mind. Let's do Option 2. :) ** Except, instead of calling them "beta", might call them "beginner" or something else -- TBD * Next step: who and when ** Who's going to write the criteria for each of the 15 competencies? ** When can we get that shipped?
Comment 7•10 years ago
|
||
* Doug: Chris had some suggestions for how we could do a lightweight "one size fits all" type approach, where you basically just ask people submit an artifact that demonstrates their beginner understanding. * Like this: https://blog.webmaker.org/test-badges * Would that work? That way, we don't have to do a lot of explicit working out of criteria.
Assignee | ||
Comment 8•10 years ago
|
||
Great! Glad you're leaning towards Option 2. :-) I know there's the general mindset of "let's get these out there and see if people want them," but the thing to remember is that these are *credentials*. People do and will expect them to have exchange value. The difficulty with going for 'beginner' rather than 'beta' is that the former signifies a *level* of competency, whereas the latter signifies that we're working out the nature of the badging system. Asking Super Mentors to do more than ascertain whether people have met criteria adds a whole other layer of complexity into the mix. We'd be asking them to make a value judgement, which I'm not sure we're ready for. ----- In answer to your questions: 1. I'll write the criteria for the 15 competencies 2. This will be shipped (pending review - Michelle? Chris?) by June 13th.
Flags: needinfo?(michelle)
Whiteboard: [june13]
Assignee | ||
Comment 9•10 years ago
|
||
EXPLORING * Navigation: Bug 1019496 * Web Mechanics: Bug 1019499 * Search: Bug 1019502 * Credibility: Bug 1019505 * Security: Bug 1019506 BUILDING * Composing for the Web: Bug 1019508 * Remixing: Bug 1015204 * Design & Accessibility: Bug 1019510 * Coding/Scripting: Bug 1015207 * Infrastructure: Bug 1019513 CONNECTING * Sharing: Bug 1019514 * Collaborating: Bug 1019518 * Community Participation: Bug 1019520 * Privacy: Bug 1015206 * Open Practices: Bug 1019522
Status: NEW → ASSIGNED
Assignee | ||
Comment 10•10 years ago
|
||
Please see above Comment 9 with links to all of the competencies. Within each of these you'll find links to an etherpad with the badge name, description, criteria and tags (as requested by Matt). Feedback very welcome.
Flags: needinfo?(michelle)
Flags: needinfo?(matt)
Flags: needinfo?(laura)
Comment 11•10 years ago
|
||
I don't think I need to review the WebLit badge criteria - makes perfect sense to use the skills as criteria. Doug and the folks who worked so hard to come up with the WebLitMap were probably thinking about badges as they went! This strategy makes bug 1019661 pretty important though :)
Flags: needinfo?(laura)
Comment 12•10 years ago
|
||
* Replace "beta" with "basics" in each badge name. Reason is to signal that these are parts of pathways. The beta-ness is central in everything Webmaker ships and will be messaged as such elsewhere (like in comms to mentors issuing, blog posts, etc.). * Do we want to craft the language for submitting evidence? "Submit a link that demonstrates you met the requirements."
Flags: needinfo?(michelle)
Comment 13•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Michelle Thorne from comment #12) > * Do we want to craft the language for submitting evidence? "Submit a link > that demonstrates you met the requirements." +1. We need that. Doug can you add that?
Flags: needinfo?(matt) → needinfo?(doug)
Assignee | ||
Comment 14•10 years ago
|
||
(In reply to Michelle Thorne from comment #12) > * Replace "beta" with "basics" in each badge name. Reason is to signal that > these are parts of pathways. The beta-ness is central in everything Webmaker > ships and will be messaged as such elsewhere (like in comms to mentors > issuing, blog posts, etc.). OK, after discussion, I think we've landed at *not* using any modifier (e.g. 'beta' or 'basics') for these badges. > * Do we want to craft the language for submitting evidence? "Submit a link > that demonstrates you met the requirements." I think just "Show that you meet the criteria for this badge" should work. ----- Marking this resolved fixed, unless people disagree.
Status: ASSIGNED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago
Flags: needinfo?(doug)
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 15•10 years ago
|
||
* Over to Claw for review before we mark as resolved.
Status: RESOLVED → REOPENED
Flags: needinfo?(chrislarry33)
Resolution: FIXED → ---
Comment 16•10 years ago
|
||
Hi all, I actually don't agree with this as the way forward here for a variety of reasons, and I don't think this ready to be discussed with the community. Can this please not be a topic on community call?
Assignee | ||
Comment 17•10 years ago
|
||
Hi Chris, could you expand please?
Assignee | ||
Comment 18•10 years ago
|
||
Assignee | ||
Comment 19•10 years ago
|
||
Meeting arranged for Friday. Attempted explanation of what I think we're trying to do here below! ----- Before we meet, I just wanted to outline more fully Option 2 in Comment 4, which was agreed with by Matt in Comment 6 (as well as Michelle and Laura when I've met with them this week). As you can see in attachment 8435547 [details], the idea would be to create Web Literacy competency badges without any modifier (no 'beta' or 'beginner'). Community members could apply for these badges when they think they meet the criteria. This reflects what we've seen in badge system design over the past couple of years, with organisations subsequently breaking down conceptually large badges into badge pathways. This means that people know what the end goal is straight away. If they're able, community members can pledge and be issued those badges. If not, then the organisation can build scaffolded pathways towards that target. The second thing to note is that we still need to do some work on the skills layer of the Web Literacy Map as part of the Badge Alliance working group Michelle and I are co-chairing. Creating 15 competency-level badges in the way proposed here allows us the breathing room to do this over the summer - while still allowing people to pledge for and earn Web Literacy badges. Third, and finally, during the process of creating the Web Literacy Map, we explicitly *rejected* the idea of a beginner/intermediate approach. This is *literacy* so we shouldn't be ascribing value judgements but instead go off explicit criteria. This becomes even more important when we're asking Mentors / Super Mentors to issue Web Literacy badges. Asking them to judge the 'level' of someone's ability (as opposed to just whether the applicant has met the criteria) would have a fairly large training implication. ----- Hope that all makes sense! :-)
Assignee | ||
Updated•10 years ago
|
Assignee: nobody → doug
Comment 20•10 years ago
|
||
We can mark this resolved and just carry on the work in the 15 individual badge detail pages
Status: REOPENED → RESOLVED
Closed: 10 years ago → 10 years ago
Resolution: --- → FIXED
Comment 21•10 years ago
|
||
sounds good
Updated•10 years ago
|
Whiteboard: [june13] → [badges] [june13]
You need to log in
before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description
•