Re: EOCred: Identify the level of a credential

Stuart, for the second definition, I agree that they are discrete
credentials (of accomplishment), I just find that in many conversations,
the tiers... or levels of degrees (and many other ranked credentials) are
talked about as levels, not as discrete degrees. Describing and linking
them in some way is probably worth doing, so that folks can know that an X
is a more advanced Y (and awards Y and extends Y).

An example in the wild: This child care credential
<http://earlychildhood.marylandpublicschools.org/system/files/filedepot/3/msdeiichildcare090215.pdf>
has
10 levels (6 practitioner, 4 administrative) of attainment, all with
different (and some with multiple potential) paths to qualification. The
names of the levels are poor (level one, level two). Having that result in
10 separate credentials is prudent but needs strong linking between them in
some fashion.

I presume in the describing of a credential, describing the levels that it
may be awarded at is useful information (No Laude, Cum Laude, Magna, Summa)
yes? Then the awarded credential indicates what performance level it is
awarded at?



On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> 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]
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 15, 2018 09:03
> *To:* Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* 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> 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>
> 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 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 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
>
> 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
>