This course will become read-only in the near future. Tell us at if that is a problem.

Compare and Contrast

Thinking deeply about the different badge system design criteria can broaden your understanding of badge system design as a whole.

Choose any three adjacent criteria from a row within the badge system design rubric. Provide a detailed comparison of the three squares and contrast thier differences. Offer improvements to the three adjacent criteria.

Once completed this compare and contrast activity solicit peer review from other participants who are earlier into this P2Pu challenge than yourself.

Task Discussion

  • Peter Rawsthorne said:

    During the sixth task of the Badge System Design course the participant is asked to compare and contrast three adjacent cells from within the rubric. I have chosen the three rightmost adjacent cells from the Endorsement criteria row.

    the three rightmost cells from the endorsement criteria of the badge system design rubric.

    Endorsement: The badge system is recognized by other organizations, communities, individuals and/or systems. It fits or is aligned with previous badge and credentialing systems of similar subject areas.

    I will break my compare and contrast into three sections;

    1. how I understand each cell
      • within the introductory cell endorsement is not applicable as this performance level is about having a simple badge or badge system being issued. Having endorsements for the badge or system is not required. If a badge or badge system begins to receive endorsements it would move into the working performance level.
      • the working cell needs a couple of endorsements, and these can come from anywhere. It is that people, groups, communities or institutions have put in the effort to endorse a badge that adds the value and puts the badge or badge system into the working performance level.
      • the notable cell needs endorsements from multiple sources, it is preferable these endorsements come from different subject areas and different contexts. The people, groups, communities or organizations need to resolve back to proven entities of reputation. How the reputation is provided will vary, it needs to exist.
    2. how each cell compares to the other
      It makes sense the introductory cell does not require endorsement. The idea is to quickly create a badge or badge system and endorsement would add effort and require a third party to provide the endorsement, this would slow down release of the badge. A working system needs endorsement from a few parties, the effort of a few parties providing endorsement is adequate to move an introductory system into being a working system.The notable system is like the working system in that it has endorsements from multiple sources. These endorsements will come from across industries and subject areas.
    3. and where do the cells contrast and what is the value in their differences
      The three different cells contrast in that the introductory cell requires no endorsement, the working cell has endorsements, and the notable cell has endorsements from multiple sources from within different industries and / or subject areas.

    I believe these three performance cells for the endorsement criteria work well together and they build toward more comprehensive endorsement. I would suggest adding that some of the sources of endorsement for the notable performance level come from organizations, communities or individuals of proven reputation. How reputation is proven becomes another issue for discussion.

    on June 12, 2013, 1:54 a.m.

    Jason said:

    I have mixed feelings about this entire area, as my task 4 comment explains.  The criteria levels are clear and distinct, but only meaningful if you accept the premise of counting endorsements as an essential part of measuring the effectiveness of a badge system.  I think , instead, that you build a good badge system based on internal measures, and if other entities endorse it, that's great, However, the presence or absence of endorsements don't make the system good, bad or indifferent.  

    on June 26, 2013, 12:42 p.m. in reply to Peter Rawsthorne