The creative work aligns with a node in an educational framework. The alignment object identifies that node and the nature of the alignment.

The Mozilla badge alignment object is described thus:

and an example is provided

{
  "name": "Awesome Robotics Badge",
...
  "alignment": [
    { "name": "CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RST.11-12.3", 
      "url": "http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/RST/11-12/3", 
      "description": "Follow precisely a complex multistep procedure when carrying out experiments, taking measurements, or performing technical tasks; analyze the specific results based on explanations in the text."
    }]
...
}

Diagrammatically:

The badge information includes an assertion that the skill or achievement aligns with some point in an educational standard

Not only do the LRMI and Open Badge alignment objects both do the same thing they seem to have have the following semantically equivalent properties relating to identifying the thing that is aligned to:

• OpenBadge alignment object URL == LRMI alignment object targetURL
• OpenBadge alignment object name == LRMI alignment object targetName
• OpenBadge alignment object description == LRMI alignment object targetDescription

(I like to think that this is not coincidence, but I don’t know how the similarity arose.)

The differences:

• Open Badges do not identify the type of alignment. It has no need, I guess, since the alignment is always one of “asserts ability at” or something similar. LRMI currently recommends no relevant value.
• Open Badges do not name the framework, I guess the assume that identifying the node will lead to knowledge of the framework. LRMI felt that this would not always be enough.
• The LRMI alignment object can be used in conjunction with a property of schema.org/CreativeWorks, I don’t think Mozilla open badge assertions are creative works in that sense, I think they are some type of schema.org/Intangible.
• Syntactically, OpenBadge assertions are made using JSON, I don’t think they use microdata. Through schema.org, LRMI uses microdata and JSON-LD.

aligning the alignment objects

The discussion that I hope to kick off with the Mozilla Open Badge and LRMI communities is should/could we make the similarities between the two alignment objects more explicit? This would give developers a two-for-one offer, understand the way Open Badges expresses alignment and you’ve understood what LRMI does, and vice versa. I don’t suppose either group wants to change a spec that is in productive use, but an informative statement about the similarities could be provided without changing either.

Beyond that I wonder if the Open Badge community have thought about use of schema.org when advertising badges, i.e. if you provide a webpage saying “we offer the following badges for X, Y and Z” would there be benefit in marking this up with schema.org microdata to improve discoverability by search engines? If there is benefit in doing so, then it would be worth thinking about what type of schema.org Thing badges are and how the LRMI alignment object might be attached to it.

The bigger picture is that someone working with the starting point of wanting to learn about something could find resources to help them learn it with the help of LRMI alignments and discover the means of showing that they had learnt it via Open Badge alignments.

Simon and I organised a session “Are open badges the future for recognition of skills?” for the CETIS conference last week, with more than a little help from Doug Belshaw. As described in more detail on the session’s wiki page, the programme was simple: presentations from Doug and Simon followed by discussion structured around a SWOT analysis for the use of badges in two scenarios.

Doug’s conference blog has his slides, audio recording and his own reflections. One of the highlights for me was almost incidental to badges: I hadn’t come across the idea of “stealth assessment” before. Simply put, stealth assessment involves monitoring what people achieve and then telling them what it qualifies them for. So a young child might be told that they have just swum 10m and now qualify for an achievement badge (kinder than putting children through the stress of pre-arranged assessments).

If Doug’s presentation was about “why?” Simon’s was about “how?”. His presented some requirements for badge systems, which also considers how close the Mozilla open badge framework comes to fulfilling these requirements.

The second half of the session was spent in group discussion structured around a SWOT analysis of two scenarios outlined by the groups:

Scenario 1, formative assessment in a high stakes field (medical education)

Strengths:

• Assessment can be continuous, accreditation expires if not renewed.
• Badges are machine processable as well as human readable.
• Cumulative, can show progress being made towards degree

Weaknesses:

• New, and therefore not trusted

Opportunities:

• Works well with highly competitive students (e.g. medics)
• Could be transferred between institutions

Threats:

• Perception of being trivial
• Unwelcome addition to current systems

Scenario 2, within a community of practice

Strengths:

• Recognition by community of practice
• Transferability to other communities

Weaknesses:

• Lack of context (range, scope etc.)
• People unwilling to dig into detail provided
• Unclear governance
• Proliferation

Opportunities:

• Currency outside the community
• Could include qualifications
• Branding opportunities
• Invitation to examine evidence in detail

Threats

• Over simplification
• Brand recognition dominates quality
• Issued by inappropriate bodies

There was a lot of discussion, and I can’t really do it justice here; I shall mention only a couple of comments. First one reported on Doug’s blog:

“We’re sick to death of hearing that X, Y or Z is going to change the world. Accept that it isn’t and move on.”

Hmm, yes, that may be a fair point. OTOH sometimes something does change the world, or at least parts of it, and it is important to keep a watch for the things that might, so I’ve no regrets about being involved in this session on that count.

The other comment came in the form of of tweets from Lawrie Phipps:

Sentiments that I have some sympathy with, however it has happened that you think you have solved a problem locally only for some external solution to come along and get adopted widely enough to be significant. So, while we don’t have an answer to the question we posed in the session title, I think open badges are looking relevant enough for it to be important that CETIS keep a watching brief on them.