<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:4F8BEDD7.3080500@flossmanuals.net" type="cite">ok,
so immediately I start to think about how cohesive this will look
over the entire FM and what it is we are trying to achieve.
Firstly, anyone can structure a book as they like. We cant change
that (and dont want to) so, if we make the badges part of the
general philosophy and structure of fm manuals i think :
<br>
1. its not the general philosophy of fm to explicitly (as would be
needed with activities at the end of sections) dictate a structure
for manuals
<br>
2. Fm is not P2PU and we should not try to be. We are Fm. We make
free manuals for free software. The badges are added value and not
the core point.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
So then, (puts black hat on again) - Why do the software learning
badges on FM at all? (as opposed to the community / workshop leader
badges) - P2PU seems like a much more natural vehicle for these
kinds of badges. <br>
<br>
Does it not make sense to build better links with them, so that the
FM manuals can be used in P2PU courses, and educators encouraged to
use them, and to maintain them. <br>
<br>
This gets around the hassle of having to bolt on badges to FM where
they are not part of the core mission. And builds bridges with
another great project and community. <br>
<br>
<blockquote> I would say we could break this down to stages as
general guiding principles for FM badges. Something like:
<br>
A. Understanding of this software
<br>
B. Basic core functionality use
<br>
C. Advanced use
<br>
D. Wizard
<br>
<br>
We could also have a special badge :
<br>
5. Workshop Leader
<br>
<br>
or some such...but make that last one hard to get
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that this would work well. I can start to try to break this
up. I would be very interested to see what other people think too. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>We could even have two levels of accreditation: <br>
1. honestly earned <br>
2. verified <br>
<br>
Same badge for each but slightly different 'accreditation' <br>
<br>
1. is for those that go through the stages and get the badge by
themselves <br>
2. is for those that go through a peer reviewed or tutor reviewed
verification <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think that an activity based badge rather than a quiz based badge
is probably the way to go. <br>
And it makes sense what you are saying, but how does that fit into
the ecosystem of Open Badges? It seems a bit confusing potentially
and a badge saying or indicating 'unverified' would be a bit of
lemon maybe.<br>
<br>
I waited a bit before sending this as I think it would be great to
hear what other people think about how this could work and potential
good and bad aspects of it. <br>
<br>
nice one<br>
mick <br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>