W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-talent-signal@w3.org > August 2019

Re: [Talent-Signal] relating competencies to job postings

From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 08:06:50 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMPdqZ2Q_K2CZzvOH3D9aG6djC7QbOS7Cd3f55ZkWJaDBxaaWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
Cc: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Dear Stuart,

I resonate with your frustration concerning existing competency frameworks
and the admittedly unscientific way the levels are set.  Often the level
progressions aren't even using a consistent axis to progress along. Within
in the same taxonomy, one competency is deemed to advance as it grows more
nuanced, another as it yields greater impact in the surrounding world, a
third as it incorporates more working knowledge/domain expertise.  For
anyone with a logical mind, the situation is a mess.

That said, for right now, there are multiple different definitions of the
same competency, within the same framework, with each definition pertaining
to that competency at a different level.  So I'm still unclear on how we
differentiate between these same-named entities unless the competency
owners, in a sudden fit of logic, decide to assign a unique ID to each
level - competency combination.  In that world, we'd effectively have your
wish come true Competency 101-3 could be be different  than 101-2, and
you'd just treat them as different objects

Your partner in dismay,


(tiny keyboard, pls excuse typos)

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 7:04 PM Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com> wrote:

> Merrilea, you are correct that the use of progression models (in your
> example,  "Level 1 - Beginner", "Level 2 - Intermediate"...) are frequent
> (but not pervasive) and some existing rubrics and public competency
> framework models use them. ASN (and CTDL-ASN) have a complexityLevel
> property to capture this data about a competency). Should there be movement
> toward subtyping DefinedTerm to something like Competency definition, such
> a property might be considered.
> There is another aspect to this, you note that that there is a "world of
> difference between Level 1 and Level 4". I'd say that "Critical Thinking"
> at level 1 and "Critical Thinking" at level 4 *are not the same thing at
> all*...so why would they all be labeled (and URI'd) as thought they were
> the same thing?  Why not, "Beginning Critical Thinking", "Intermediate
> Critical Thinking", "Advanced Critical Thinking", and "Expert Critical
> Thinking"--*each with its own definition*. (but, I am tilting at
> windmills).
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:09 AM Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> If we're considering "what else to add," the one thing nearly all the
>> competency frameworks are converging on now, that is not necessarily
>> represented in DefinedTerm, are gradations of expertise within competency.
>> This is not dissimilar to degree fields  having levels within them:
>> bachelors, masters, Ph.D.  Most competency frameworks (e.g., Connecting
>> Credentials, Center for Curriculum Redesign) assign 4 levels, because this
>> is kind of standard for rubrics used in teaching, but we wouldn't need to
>> assume an exact number of levels.  DOL, for example, intrinsically has 3
>> benchmark levels underlying each competence.
>> To illustrate the 4 level system, within Critical Thinking you'd
>> typically have
>>    - Critical Thinking - Level 1 - Beginner  (e.g., "determine whether a
>>    subordinate has a good excuse for being late")
>>    - Critical Thinking - Level 2 - Intermediate
>>    - Critical Thinking - Level 3 - Advanced
>>    - Critical Thinking - Level 4 - Expert  (e.g., "write a legal brief
>>    challenging a federal law" - this is actually a Level 3 exemplar in the DOL
>>    system)
>> I'm thinking the level gradations might be a useful thing to accommodate
>> because there is a world of difference between Level 1 and Level 4 in these
>> rubrics.  If employers ever start specifying competencies rigorously,
>> they'll want to specify a level, too.
>> Merrilea
>> On 8/1/2019 6:52 AM, Phil Barker wrote:
>> On 01/08/2019 03:35, Jim Goodell wrote:
>> I agree the structure of skills (or the proposed competencyRequired from
>> the EOC extension) with DefinedTerm/DefinedTermSet works for now.
>> I’m wondering however, assuming the current work is going to get more
>> organizations doing linked data for Competencies, then it would be better
>> to introduce a more complete Competency vocabulary and get orgs using that,
>> then propose it to Schema.org with evidence that it is already being used.
>> The communities we are connected to are the ones most likely to mark up
>> with more than just a text label for a skill or to publish complete
>> frameworks.
>> If we work within current limitations of Schema now we lock into an
>> imperfect solution and future breaking changes for implemeters should we
>> ever want to have a more complete solution in the future.
>> I guess it depends on how much we think the current work will drive
>> practice...It’s a chicken and egg problem and I’m wondering if going with
>> the egg would be best.
>> Yes, that's a good question.
>> Am I right in thinking that we are not in the position of wanting to
>> create a schema.org-based way of representing the full detail of competency
>> frameworks themselves? That is, of building a schema.org specification
>> that would allow systems to exchange all the details of the competency
>> frameworks they use. My feeling is that there are already N specifications
>> trying to do that and having N+1 isn't the way to go.
>> If that's right, then the question is: what do we want to do with
>> competencies in schema.org? I think we want to *refer to them* in a way
>> that lets a system (a) know that they are a competency, (b) show sufficient
>> information about them ('sufficient' is open to interpretation), and (c)
>> know where to get / point the user to further information.
>> I am confident that using a DefinedTerm satisfies (c). We need a little
>> more input to know whether (b) is satisfied.
>> DefinedTerm also satisfies (a), if we allow for a certain amount of
>> inferencing, i.e. 'this DefinedTerm is used as the object of a schema.org:skill
>> therefor it must be some sort of competence'. We could remove the need for
>> inferencing by suggesting one or two new types, say, CompetencyDefinition
>> and possibly CompetencyFramework which would initially indicate explicitly
>> that the thing being described is related to compentencies and could
>> additionally provide information on the competency. For starters I would
>> suggest we would want to know what type of competence it is (knowledge,
>> skill, ability, tool/technology, personal attribute...) and what standard
>> encodings are available (ASN, CASS, CASE...)
>> Is that an egg worth incubating?
>> Phil
>> --
>> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for
>> innovation in education technology.
>> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning;
>> information systems for education.
>> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
>> England number OC399090
>> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
>> number SC569282.
>> --
>> Merrilea J. Mayo, Ph.D.
>> Mayo Enterprises, LLC
>> 12101 Sheets Farm Rd.
>> North Potomac, MD 20878
>> merrileamayo@gmail.com
>> https://merrileamayo.com/
>> 240-304-0439 (cell)
>> 301-977-2599 (landline)
Received on Friday, 2 August 2019 12:07:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:33:36 UTC