Re: EOCred: Identify the level of a credential

Thanks Robby. I think that confirms that points 1 and 3 that Fritz 
mentioned are distinct. "Accomplishment level" should get a mention at 
least in the definition.

Phil


On 15/02/18 14:12, Robby Robson wrote:
>
> Very quickly: In competency modelling, levels such as beginner, 
> intermediate, advanced are usually NOT different levels of the same 
> competency. As one progresses through them, one gathers NEW skill and 
> does not simply improve old skills. So in competency modelling, at 
> least, these are related but different competencies. To clarify this, 
> we speak of /performance levels/, which are measurable, ordered levels 
> of the same competency (in rubrics, for example, “does not meet,” 
> “meets,” and “exceeds”).
>
> I don’t know whether that really applies to /credentials/ however. I 
> would just caution about confusing labels such as  “journeyman” or 
> “master” which I would call levels of /accomplishment/ with levels of 
> /performance/.
>
> Robby Robson
>
> */Eduworks
> /*robby.robson@eduworks.com <mailto:robby.robson@eduworks.com>
>
> NOTICE: This communication may contain private, proprietary or 
> confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient or 
> believe you received this by mistake, please inform the sender and 
> delete all copies. Thanks!
>
> *From:* Stuart Sutton [mailto:stuartasutton@gmail.com 
> <mailto:stuartasutton@gmail.com>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 09:03
> *To:* Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com <mailto:fritley@gmail.com>>
> *Cc:* public-eocred-schema@w3.org <mailto:public-eocred-schema@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: EOCred: Identify the level of a credential
>
> Fritz, I agree that the notion of "level" can be complex, but need not 
> be so. I would eliminate your second and third notions because: (1) 
> the second would and should be identified as a distinct credential 
> (Bachelor os Science in Software Engineering); and (2) the third is 
> not an inherent characteristic of the credential (as work) but rather 
> the level of an awarded credential--e.g., "Joe earned his Bachelor of 
> Science in Software Engineering Summa Cum Laude".
>
> As Phil has noted elsewhere, the European take on the latter might be 
> different since, I believe, there is a closer tie in identifying 
> credentials to level of accomplishment.
>
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com 
> <mailto:fritley@gmail.com>> 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 capability in
>         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
>
>         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/
>
>             -- 
>
>             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
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Stuart A. Sutton, Metadata Consultant
>
> Associate Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
>
>  Information School
>
> Email: stuartasutton@gmail.com <mailto:stuartasutton@gmail.com>
>
> Skype: sasutton
>

-- 

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