- From: Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 07:20:45 -0700
- To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CADgY+ajowPC5x4tzCMt22DV_mWiEeK0Wp5+-05ia_+7oUOD4ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Phil,
Within the CaSS Project, we define performance levels (which, ideally, have
the performance standards necessary to qualify at that level in the
description) separately for this reason. Performance levels do not apply to
novice/intermediate/expert (so called achievement levels), because
novice/intermediate/expert imply both breadth and depth of capabilities,
and are represented as separate competencies. Performance criteria are also
allowed as competencies. There is still a proliferation of terms -- less so
the requirements, more so the expected capabilities (achievement and
performance).
Achievement-based Progressions x General Competencies look and feel awkward
in competency frameworks if encoded strictly as a hierarchy.
- Expert Woodworking
- Performs Joinery
- Intermediate Woodworking
- Uses a Router
- Novice Woodworking
- Nails Wood Together
Achievement Progressions x Performance x General Competencies based get
very odd.
- Expert Woodworking
- Performs Dovetails
- Performs Dovetails with a minimum of error within 15 minutes.
- Uses a Router
- Routes complex shapes
- Nails Wood Together
- Nails wood together without seam and taking into account grain
direction and match.
- Intermediate Woodworking
- Uses a Router
- Routes basic shapes (circles, corners, waves)
- Nails Wood Together
- Nails wood together without seam
- Novice Woodworking
- Nails Wood Together
- Nails wood together in a load bearing capacity
Ultimately, the generalized competencies becomes confusing and difficult to
create data for (Are the two "Nails Wood Together" the same?).
It is much simpler to just do Achievement Level x Performance Level as:
- Expert Woodworking
- Performs Dovetails with a minimum of error within 15 minutes.
- Routes complex shapes
- Nails wood together without seam and taking into account grain
direction and match.
- Intermediate Woodworking
- Routes basic shapes (circles, corners, waves)
- Nails wood together without seam
- Novice Woodworking
- Nails wood together in a load bearing capacity
The advantage here is that the progression is explicit and isn't
interpreted based on a loose set of "complexity or speed" progression
criteria. Then, the progression labels (Novice, Intermediate, Expert) just
become tags.
And for the sake of completeness, General Competency x Performance Level
looks like:
- Performs Dovetails
- Performs Dovetails with a minimum of error within 15 minutes.
- Uses a Router
- Routes complex shapes
- Routes basic shapes (circles, corners, waves)
- Nails Wood Together
- Nails wood together without seam and taking into account grain
direction and match.
- Nails wood together without seam
- Nails wood together in a load bearing capacity
On Fri, Aug 2, 2019 at 4:59 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes, I tend to agree that if there is a world of difference between two
> things they are different things.
>
> This does touch a little on another issue around statements of
> competencies required for given jobs, which is that the requirement is
> often not and unqualified binary. So I would like pre-empt any questions
> about whether this approach works with more nuanced requirement statements
> such as distinguishing between required and desired competencies (must have
> and nice to have), and statements such as "must be expert in" versus "must
> be aware of". This could get really complicated; it could lead to a
> proliferation of requirement-related terms. Another approach is to allow
> local annotations of relationship between the job and the competence (this
> is the approach taken by JDX, with an 'AnnotatedDefinedTerm'). So, I just
> want to note here that using the skills property to point to competency is
> not a blind alley in terms of being more nuanced about requirements.
>
> Phil
> On 02/08/2019 00:04, Stuart Sutton 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)
>>
> --
>
> 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.
>
Received on Friday, 2 August 2019 14:21:21 UTC