- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 14:23:17 +0000
- To: public-eocred-schema@w3.org
- Message-ID: <cb7dee15-1864-f114-ac2c-576387bd115e@pjjk.co.uk>
Thanks Fritz, I think that is a good analysis. In Europe at least, there is definitely a link between level as your first point and credentials. Of course this reflects back to the level of competence expected. I wouldn't say "they are just labels for a person's capability in that credential", rather I would say that the credential level tells you about the person's capability in the subject/field/competences in question. Your second meaning (in Europe again, but I think in the US as well) is related to the credit value, at least as far as the extent of coverage of a field is involved, usually linked to a notional time required to cover the material. (and I see Stuart has just made the point that these tend to be different types the credential: e.g. SCQF Certificate = 1 year of study, Diploma = 2 years: of course it's not so easily separated, in two years you may also reach a higher level). Ryan's comment in the 'link to a course' thread may also be related to credit value, so i think we should cover this separately. We do have a use case about transfer value of credentials, which may be the opportunity to discuss this, though it is a wider issue than transfer. Yes, the grade/mark at which a credential is earned by an individual is, I think, out of scope. Phil On 15/02/18 05:10, Fritz Ray wrote: > I'll let Robby chime in and explain my understanding of Level better > than I can. > > Level has at least three senses of the word that are applicable, that > I have found. > > * There is a general sense of someone's capability as defined by a > level, such as a novice, beginner, intermediate, journeyman, > advanced, expert, professional, etc. *Sometimes* these have formal > (but not necessarily specific) definitions, but much of the time > they are just labels for a person's capability in that credential. > They don't take much, if any expertise to identify or understand > though, and that makes them useful to non-practitioners. I see > this as being used more in competencies and less in credentials, > but I am including it for contrast. > > * There's a formal and specific sense of someone's capabilityin > breadth and depth in this credential and a subset of more granular > courses or other competency granting things. These are most > commonly ascribed to credentials. A /_Bachelor's of Science_/ in > Software Engineering indicates so many credit hours of mandatory > technical, social, math, etc, so many credit hours of elective > classes, and additional projects. That is, the credential's level > indicates the courses and competencies obtained. > > Note: It is often correct to think of these as different > credentials, since an Associate's degree and a Bachelor's degree > have different requirements, but they are both in the same domain, > so thinking of them as levels is common. > > * And then there's a technical and specific sense of someone's > capability, which could be considered "SMART" -- Specific, > Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-Oriented. A /_Summa Cum > Laude_/ Bachelor's of Science in Software Engineering includes the > implication of an algorithm or rubric (in this case of the > individual's GPA) and the measurement against some thresholds > (3.85 / 4.0 and above). Awards for Olympic achievements like > breaking the Olympic record, for instance, include this sense. > > Note: It is often impractical to think of these as different > credentials, since each Olympic record breaking credential would > require a different description for its specific 'credential'. > > I don't pretend to have definitive nomenclature for each of these (and > I'm not sure anyone does), but "Naive/General Level, (Tiers, Ranks, > Levels), and Performance Level" tend to be accepted. > > I'd describe the first definition with _just_ short strings or terms, > the middle definition with links to more specific credentials, and the > latter with some sort of performance profile, like a rubric, or > performance record, like the data indicating someone broke an Olympic > record. > > Note: The third definition may be outside current capabilities to > describe. I already accept this. > > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 4:24 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk > <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote: > > Thank you for all the discussion so far. I have tried to summarise > where we are with describing the level of a credential in a draft > on the wiki > <https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/User:Philbarker/Draft:Educational_level_of_a_credential>. > I have gone with direct references to terms that described > educational levels, without any AlignmentObjecting > > In doing so I have tried not to refer to credentials explicitly, > because I think this property might be useful for Courses and > learning resources in general, but I am open to input on that if > you think that it makes the definition unnecessarily vague. > > The main issue I see is whether educationalLevel is the right > name. If it is not, I suspect that Robbie has started writing his > reply before reading this far :) I am very open to wording from > people involved in occupational credentialling and workplace > learning for wording that is more inviting to their community. > > As ever, all comments welcome. Phil > > > [draft educationaLevel] > https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/User:Philbarker/Draft:Educational_level_of_a_credential > <https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/User:Philbarker/Draft:Educational_level_of_a_credential> > > > > On 07/02/18 12:27, Phil Barker wrote: >> >> The next use case I would like to discuss is around identifying >> the level of an educational / occupational credential currently >> stated as: it should be possible to search or review results of a >> search by specific credential level, e.g. post-graduate, High >> school, entry, intermediate, advanced. >> >> To do this we need to be able to relate an educational / >> occupational credential to a description or representation of an >> educational level. I see two options for this: >> >> A. we do the same as is currently done for learning resources and >> courses and use the educationalAlignement >> <http://schema.org/educationalAlignment>property to point to an >> AlignmentObject <http://schema.org/AlignmentObject> which in turn >> points to and/or describes an educational level. >> >> B. we add a new property educationalLevel which could point to >> either an AlignmentObject or directly to a DefinedTerm for the >> educational level. >> >> I'm interested in anyone's thoughts on which they would prefer. >> >> >> =A bit of background to the AlignmentObject.= >> >> - the educationalAlignment / AligmentObject pairing is useful >> when you don't want to pre-define and thus limit types of >> alignments involved by having a few properties for specific >> alignments (that's at the root of why LRMI introduced it, here we >> have a specific alignment type we know we want.) >> >> - the AlignmentObject is useful when the thing to which you are >> aligning is not properly defined a a firstclass schema.org >> <http://schema.org> object; it allows you to refer to it by >> description >> >> - the AlignmentObject is useful when you want to say things about >> the alignment itself (e.g. describe who asserts the alignment is >> true and how they came to this judgement) though this ability is >> under developed and to my knowledge not used >> >> - research <https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3054160>[*] into >> LRMI schema.org <http://schema.org> markup in the wild suggests >> that the AlignmentObject (and relatively more complex / abstract >> approaches in general) are used less frequently than simpler >> property - value [literal] relationships. >> >> - the Open Badges spec uses an alignment property to point from a >> badge class to an AlignmentObject representing objectives or >> educational standards (which is slightly different to this use >> case, though we several use cases for aligning to competencies) >> >> >> Please let me know your thoughts. >> >> Phil >> >> >> * open access copy of that paper at >> https://blogs.pjjk.net/phil/confpaper/analysing-improving-embedded-markup-learning-resources-web/ >> <https://blogs.pjjk.net/phil/confpaper/analysing-improving-embedded-markup-learning-resources-web/> >> >> >> -- >> >> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. >> http://people.pjjk.net/phil >> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance >> learning; information systems for education. >> CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education >> technology. >> >> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited >> company, number SC569282. >> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered >> in England number OC399090 >> > > -- > > Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil > PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance > learning; information systems for education. > CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education > technology. > > PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited > company, number SC569282. > CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered > in England number OC399090 > > -- Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education. CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology. PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282. CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
Received on Thursday, 15 February 2018 14:23:44 UTC