Evidence suggests that digital badges still pose a degree of uncertainty when it comes to evaluating the effectiveness of learning performance, according to recent research by Newby and Cheng (2019). When we think or discuss digital badges, they are primarily associated with micro-credentials; in fact, when I conducted several scholarly searches, micro-learning and micro-credential studies were among the top results. There is a growing body of literature and studies measuring learners’ perception and motivation; however, as Newby and Cheng suggest, actual learner performance remains largely unknown (2019). Badges have been around for centuries and have commonly become the basis for representing learner accomplishments (Newby & Cheng, 2019; Ippolito, 2018). As previously discussed in this MALAT course content, there are notable differences between simply meeting learning outcomes and meeting the competency required to apply the learning outside the educational experience. This is where the literature and conversations get contentious. The most exciting attribute that is weaved into several studies and discussed in a wide range of applications is the link between motivation and goal setting (Clements et al., 2020; Gamrat 7 Bixler, 2019; Purmensky et al., 2020). Goal setting allows the learner to set goals and envision themselves attaining the desired goal. Setting goals are highly effective and are present in everything from education to employment to personal growth, and furthermore is encouraged in just as many ways, popularly and more recently in games; however, goal setting has a history and is much deeper than just attainable with technology alone. Clements et al. (2020) note that micro-credentials in themselves are only as effective as the design, accessibility, goals and intention embedded in the delivery. Since digital badges or any evaluation of micro-credentials can be applied to pretty much anything and the organizations that evaluate the learner’s competency can be diverse, this has become an area that will require a high level of governance, rigour, universality and acceptance to allow the education field to accept micro-credentials as an equal opportunity option for learning that not only reduces barriers but supports skills development and real-life application of learning outcomes. It is encouraging to see continuing research in the area of digital badges when studies are designed using a human-centred approach; this has the promise of equitable learning opportunities for individuals previously omitted from the design objectives. Transparent and effective goals are an area I hope to look further into to understand how design can positively affect learner experience and performance.

References

Clements, K., West, R. E., & Hunsaker, E. (2020). Getting started with open badges and open microcredentials. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 21(1), 154-172.

Gamrat, C., & Bixler, B. (2019). Six roadblocks to designing digital badges. Library Technology Reports, 55(3), 14-18.

Ippoliti, C. (2018). History of Micro-credentialing. Teaching with Digital Badges: Best Practices for Libraries, 1.

Newby, T.J., Cheng, Z. Instructional digital badges: effective learning tools. Education Tech Research Dev 68, 1053–1067 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-019-09719-7

Purmensky, K., Xiong, Y., Nutta, J., Mihai, F., & Mendez, L. (2020). Microcredentialing of English learner teaching skills: An exploratory study of digital badges as an assessment tool. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 20(1), 199-226.