Keywords

1 Introduction

Interest in digital badges has grown in recent years, largely as a result of two converging developments :

  • Tools and platforms are becoming available, drawing on Web, authentication, and analytics technologies

  • Alternative learning resources and experiences are growing, including Web-based/open resources and communities and self-directed learning activity

The vision is appealing: break up the monopoly long held by degree-granting universities and let people control and document their own learning, with the help of badging systems that document learning accomplishments. Traditional credentials will always have value, but badging systems, as a disruptive innovation, will fill a small niche initially, then grow over time and lead to big changes in how we certify initial training and continuing career development.

In this story the university is the big guy set up for a fall—Goliath—and the badging approach is the upstart (David). Goliath watches stupidly as the world changes around him. Like every story however, it is partly true and partly fiction. Universities, can, of course, become badge issuers. Like a full-service bank, the university could include a full range of services and offerings, from formal degrees and certificates to smaller scale badges offered for internal or external use. Because of their established credibility, universities enjoy initial competitive advantage in the present landscape, with badges in early stages of development. Long term, a broad-based approach to university credentialing would include digital badges, strengthening ties to learners, employers, and professional support providers. At least in theory, badges could play a role in strengthening traditional degree programs and solidifying the university as a credentialing institution.

Even so, universities face significant challenges in integrating badges into their systems and practices . Inertia is one: the mindset that says badges are a nuisance and a sidebar issue. Another is the resource question: badges are one more item that busy professors and administrators may not have time for. Even when people understand the need and are willing to get engaged—where do we start, and how do we proceed? This chapter is offered to those university personnel who are sympathetically inclined toward badges, interested and willing to get started—but unsure about next steps. We offer short reports of our experience with digital badges at two levels: course level badges and program level badges. Then, we take a look at the infrastructure and support needed to grow badges at these two levels. We walk through our development efforts from inception to the present day, with a peek at the future. We examine our efforts as a case of technology adoption or diffusion of an innovation (Rogers, 2003). We also reflect on ways that badges can potentially affect the university’s mission and identity. In the long run badges may indeed exert a disruptive influence on universities.

The basic concept of badges is fairly simple. Digital badges are micro-credentials certifying some kind of competency or skill. The credential is issued by an organization or entity, which assesses and certifies the learning. The badge is assigned to the learner through an authentication system, and then accessed and used by the individual learner for various purposes—e.g., assembling a skills portfolio, or presenting evidence of competency for job searches of performance appraisals. Because of badging systems like Mozilla’s Open Badges, widely and freely available to users, universities do not require expensive and elaborate systems to get started. An instructor or program outreach may issue a badge without too much trouble. So what’s the problem?

A few “problems” do arise within the higher-education context:

  • Getting noticed and supported at the startup level. Badges are new to higher education and there are few early adopters to collaborate with. Support at administrative levels could vary for small scale implementations.

  • Sharing a consistent vision for badges across levels (admin, academic programs, university). Badges can be seen as a nuisance or there may be a lack of infrastructure to scale implementation.

  • Developing a system that is simple and usable enough for students, faculty, and academic programs to commit to. Current badging platforms for enterprise use do not have all the functionality needed to scale, including full learning management system integration.

  • Supporting users (programs, faculty, and students) in their effective use of badges. Resources for staffing, training, and support can be a limiting factor during implementation.

  • Aligning badge systems to the larger mission of the university and strengthening academic programs and degrees. Badges potential has not been fully exposed in the mainstream, administrators may be weary about dedicating funding and resource to a university wide initiative.

  • Poor assessment threatens the validity of badges. Badges may be awarded even if competencies or skills are not fully demonstrated. This can affect an institution's reputation and the validity of badge ecosystem.

These issues are common with any new practice, and must be attended to if the innovation is to succeed. These issues will surface in the two cases reported below (individual and program level). In an effort mitigate problems, infrastructure and support are identified as a key factor in scaling badges at a university. Considering scale, future plans for badging is explored. The chapter’s concluding section re-examines the issues and offers recommendations for launching a badging system within the university setting.

2 Research: An Overview

According to the Mozilla Foundation and Peer 2 Peer university (2012), a badge is “a symbol or indicator of an accomplishment, skill, quality or interest.” Technically, a badge is an image file linked to metadata that justifies and validates the badge, with information about the badge, the issuer, what the owner had to do in order to earn the badge, expiration date etc. Consequently, the value of the badge is closely related to the assessment and evaluation strategies as well as the recognition, credibility, and acceptance of the issuer. The badge’s strength increases if the issuer and issuing process are accepted within an ecosystem of certified people and institutions (Gibson, Ostashewski, Flintoff, Grant, & Knight, 2013).

Digital badges are seen as a way to recognize and accredit the informal learning. Learning happens anywhere and anytime in today’s world and the fact that we can only recognize very little of it has been a controversial subject. A study conducted in Los Angeles, California has found that the majority of the general public’s science learning occurs outside of school and specifically occurs through personal learning needs and interests (Falk, Storksdieck, & Dierking, 2007).

The increased popularity of standardized testing in the United States ignited conversations on alternative ways to measure, assess and recognize skills and learning. At the 2007 Presidential Address for the American Educational Research Association, Eva Baker warned educators about accountability and validity issues of tests, which are often assumed to be valid and useful for a wide range of uses and decisions. One of the responses she recommended was to rapidly develop a set of merit badge Qualifications that reflect twenty-first century needs. Each Qualification would be a validated experience obtained inside or outside the school. Qualifications would then be aligned with integrated goals, tasks, learning experiences, and tests performance requirements (Baker, 2007).

Badges have been used by different online and gaming platforms such as Foursquare, LinkedIn, and Xbox, but a white paper released in 2012 by the Mozilla Foundation and partners spurred interest in educational uses (Mozilla Foundation & Peer to Peer University, 2012). They argued that badges could signal more granular and specified learning to employers and other stakeholders, and help motivate learners to achieve and share credentials and accomplishments. The paper also asserted that badges would help personalize learning by giving control to the learner of their own learning pathways. This is in keeping with Dan Hickey’s (2012) lists four main functions of badges:

  • Recognizing learning

  • Motivating learning

  • Assessing learning

  • Evaluating learning

2.1 Recognition

Recognition is the most known and referenced function of digital badges. Their potential lies in their ability to recognize and accredit the informal learning (Hickey, 2012; Mozilla Foundation & Peer to Peer University, 2012). We already are capable to recognize learning happens in formal environments. Badges offer an opportunity to acknowledge the great deal of learning that happens in everyday life, outside of school (Werquin, 2010).

2.2 Motivation

Motivation issues surrounding badges have generated some controversy among educators. In some cases, imposition of external rewards has been found to compete with the intrinsic enjoyment of learning tasks (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Today, many badge skeptics criticize the use of badges as motivational tools because of the risk of decreasing learners’ motivation to learn. Nieswandt and Shanahan (2008) found that students’ motivational levels needs to be scaffolded, particularly in student-centered learning and teaching contexts. In their study, when participants viewed the task as an authentic and meaningful experience, participants’ motivation to get through the course and get the credit shifted to one where they started desiring to learn and understand the material. Similarly, Abramovich, Schunn, and Higashi (2013) found that badge earning could be driven by motivation and badges could positively affect learner motivations. They have also found that extrinsic motivators can have negative influence on learning. Their study has showed that different badges affect different learner motivations. They warn educational badge designers to consider their learners’ ability and motivations when choosing the badge types they want to include their curricula. Resnick (2012) further indicates that because students may focus on collecting of badges rather than learning the material, it is critical for badge designers to think carefully about the motivational consequences of the badges so that the badges will not become the central focus of motivation .

2.3 Assessment and External Uses

Sullivan (2013) cites that while nearly every state in the US requires the completion of at least one social studies course to graduate from high school, only nine states require any kind of learning assessment in social studies. Clearly a need exists, she argues, for “multidimensional assessments that can accommodate a diverse set of learning environments (e.g. formal classrooms, after-school programs, community settings), and the long developmental trajectories that can span beyond a single grade year or classroom” (Sullivan, 2013, p. 1). As an alternative way of assessment Baker (2007) and Davidson (2011) indicate educational badges can serve as summative, formative, and transformative assessment of learning. Summative assessment functions certifies that learning indeed occurred; formative assessment point to paths toward improvement; and transformative assessment looks for deeper changes to identity and social role. To ensure validity, badge designers need to carefully consider different goals for their badges, validation concerns, and the philosophical, theoretical assumptions behind them (Hickey, 2012).

Badges as recognition of learning and skills may help prospective employers and admissions committees when choosing between applicants. However, Diamond and Gonzalez (2014) indicate that it is still too soon to use badges as signaling techniques because without external authorities such as school or district administrators to recognize the badges, it will be very difficult to sustain a badge system. In their competency-based professional development (PD) program for teachers, only a small percentage of the participants sought out badges specifically. Teachers were not interested in gaining badges; they were rather drawn to the project because of the high quality content. The authors call for study of the broader contexts in which the badges will exist (Diamond & Gonzalez, 2014).

Similarly, Põldoja and Laanpere (2014) used digital badges in a hybrid course and examined student perceptions of badges. According to the interview findings, students appreciated the way badges recognize and allow them to present their achievements; however, they also admitted that they see little value in badges because they were narrowly used in only one course as an experiment, not used broadly. All respondents agreed badges could have a larger potential if they become an integral part of the higher education assessment system. Both of these studies show that in order for badges to be able to gain popularity, they must be accepted by broader contexts. Higher education is of course one of the broader contexts in which the badge systems may exist. In principle, badges have the potential of weakening and disrupting the authority of higher education institutions and changing the current credentialing system completely (Gibson et al., 2013; Olneck, 2012; Sullivan, 2013).

Davies and Mehta (2011, as cited in Olneck, 2012), assert another possibility, claiming that higher education institutions will adopt “accommodation logic” and incorporate badging systems within their own boundaries. That accommodation logic serves as the conceptual basis for the present chapter, as we explore our local efforts to integrated badges into established higher-education structures .

2.4 Evaluation

Hickey (2012) points out badges’ potential to help evaluating the learning using the meta-data. He argues that the researchers can use badges to collect data since badges are able to carry various types of information including hyperlinks to artifacts, testimonials, rubrics, and course descriptions. Compiling the data that badges have, researchers could evaluate the impact of the education that has been given.

3 Badges Within an Online Master’s Program

This section reports on our work at the University of Colorado Denver’s graduate program in Information and Learning Technologies (ILT). We first describe efforts within a master’s program—badges offered within individual courses, led by instructor Len Scrogan and reported in Len’s voice. Len’s work and broader interest within the faculty has led to broader plans for integrating badges into the master’s curriculum, reported next.

3.1 Within Courses: Len’s Experience

Over the last 3 years, I have been offering digital badges within three different courses, two at the graduate level and one at the undergraduate level. My purpose was fourfold: (1) to explore an assessment technology that had seen an increasing footprint at national conferences in recent years; (2) to distinguish what types of competencies are best represented through the administration of classroom badges; (3) to observe the motivational force of badges or micro-certifications; and (4) to determine what type of student benefits most from classroom-based badges.

Throughout this effort, I anticipated and wrestled with a number of concerns: Will badges be perceived as childish by undergraduates or graduate students? Will perceptions of worth play out differently for students serving in industry, as opposed to educational, settings? How do I avoid trivializing accomplishments, while ensuring authenticity and relevance for each badge earned? Will students export and exhibit their badges to external audiences, or will this experience solely serve as an incentive within the course? What badge types make the most sense? How technically difficult or time consuming will it be to set up and manage badges?

I chose two types of badges for this 3-year experiment: (a) a badge for individual core competencies; and (b) a progressive badge showing mastery and performance over time.

I began by connecting badges to core course competencies, not simply quizzes, tests, or nominal course activity. For example, in a graduate level assessment course, I created a badge for a very difficult competency to master and demonstrate: the ability to construct higher-order-thinking questions for formative and summative assessment purposes. In another graduate level course certifying students for teaching online, I installed and administered two competency-level badges, each with a number of expectations and “moving pieces”: first, being able to lead and manage a synchronous training event; and second, creatively designing, leading, and bringing closure to an online class discussion with peers. In an undergraduate class, I chose to shape a performance badge (evidencing self-efficacy, creativity, and curriculum connection in digital teaching/learning) earned through the completion of three progressive and rigorous self-selected projects .

Although I am still very much in the throes of working with badges, I have made a few observations regarding my initial concerns.

  • Will badges be perceived as childish by undergraduates or graduate students? Initially, badges are perceived as childish by in-service educators and industry folks; graduate students in medical fields often envision a much clearer connection to their work, however; generally, the lowest buy-in is from K12 educators.

  • Will perceptions of worth play out differently for students serving in industry, as opposed to educational, settings? Most students who show the highest interest in exporting and displaying earned badges are currently in career transition; badges are therefore much more practical and relevant to them. Students in static positions found themselves much less motivated to export or display badges. However, in general, the majority of students to not use them or export them to professional settings.

  • How do I avoid trivializing accomplishments, while ensuring authenticity and relevance for each badge earned? It was fairly easy to tie badges to core competencies in the class. By awarding badges for rigorous accomplishment or performances, the students are able to see the relevance.

  • Will students export and exhibit their badges to external audiences, or will this experience solely serve as an incentive within the course? Based on my experiences, most students did not export or display their badges. However, it appears that badges are a generally new concept to students in the school of education.

  • What badge types make the most sense? Various badge types (skill-based, competency-based, progressive, jigsaw) are worthwhile, the value of each depending on the competency being performed.

  • How technically difficult or time consuming will it be to set up and manage badges? Making, managing, updating, and authorizing badges is not without a learning curve or recurring technical challenges. As an emerging assessment technology, this is clearly not for the timid .

3.2 Within a Larger Plan of Study

Len’s interest in digital badges is shared by other learning technologies faculty at CU Denver. The MA plan of study is a lean 30 credits, so every credit counts. Collectively, we are presently planning the formal integration of digital badges into MA requirements. Looking back, the planning space for badges has happened within a historical and cultural context of program values and practices, outlined below.

  • Online portfolios. For more than 15 years, MA graduates have published online portfolios . Portfolios are portals that introduce an emerging professional to the world, through a brief intro and reflection, a résumé, several showcased products and projects, and contact information for further exchanges. By way of their portfolio, students demonstrate their e-learning competency to the world—not just their faculty reviewers. In many ways the portfolio requirement lies at the heart of the educational experience, and reflects a broader competency-based approach within the program, e.g.:

    • A commitment to sharing . Like the portfolio, every class results in products of some relevance to the world, that can be shared publicly. Course instructors ask students to publicly share their work on completion, so that other students can review and benefit.

    • Focus on the here and now. We want the program to be relevant to students here and now—not just after receipt of diploma. By their second semester, some students take on part-time work that complements their academic load. As they progress through the program they are building a professional learning network (PLN), which they need to cultivate throughout their careers and which will assist in their continued growth and development. Students are doing professional work in classes, and building resources and connections from the very beginning of their studies.

    • Rite of passage. We stress the program’s role in their induction into the e-learning profession. In this sense the portfolio at program’s end serves as a rite of passage, signifying their assumption of a new identity as e-learning specialists. Such rites are important symbols of growth and development, and complement the new language and new practices of the professional community.

    • Credit reflecting work accomplishment . No academic credit is given for the final preparation of portfolios, although it does represent the comprehensive exam for the MA. Students quickly absorb the program’s values and stance toward productivity—credit is given for demonstrable products and accomplishments, not just for seat-time or passing a test. When considering waiver requests for core courses, for example, work products are a key source of evidence .

    • Portfolio requirements and the underlying competencies have been recently revised, to make them even more relevant to workplace realities. Students now prepare a professional portal (which we call a homebase), intended for continuing use, rather than an academic site intended for skills evaluation. The site serves as a demonstration of competency, but only incidentally so. Its main function is to introduce the person to the world and serve as a point of contact and connection with other professionals.

  • Resources for self-direction. About 8 years ago ILT faculty developed a website called ILT Resources, to serve as an advisement center for continuing students. The goal was a single point of contact for many advisement issues, which would reduce the need for calls and emails about program details. The page includes links to plans of study, course rotation, course descriptions, faculty profiles, portfolio requirements, and other administrative details. Over time a set of content resources was added, under the heading of New Student Orientation. Presently an entire page called Design Methods and Principles consists entirely of links to content resources—papers, primers, tutorials, and videos—presenting basic principles of e-learning and instructional design, intended for beginning and continuing students. These content resources thus become another way for students to control their own professional learning. As needs arise within a course or project, an instructor or peer student may point to a common resource, or students may engage in systematic study of these resources independently. Presently we expect that the content resources are under-used, however—hence the prospective value of a digital badge which could give credit for its greater adoption and use.

  • Flexible advisement . ILT faculty understand that the role of an MA program is not to see every student jump every hoop—it is rather to help every student get to a point of solid expertise as a professional. To attract the very best students, advisors are keenly appreciate the need for flexibility, to give credit or allow waivers or different paths for students with special talents and expertise.

With these issues in mind, the faculty has discussed the adoption of badges as similar to capstone field experiences at the end, which is required by one program track. If field credit can be given and acknowledged as critically important, then why not a collection of badges signifying high-quality, independent demonstration of skills?

At this point we are planning a new elective that would be an accumulation of self-study badges—essentially a self-study option for students. Graduate credit still needs to be purchased, since students cannot go below 30 credits for the MA, per Graduate School rules. Offering the badge elective, with a specific structure for individual self-study badges, will be a small first step toward even greater emphasis on competency-based education. We may never become a fully competency-based program, but the badge elective signifies the value we place on continuing self-directed learning from our students, during and after their participation in the program.

4 School-Wide Infrastructure and Support

An individual instructor could utilize an open source badging platform to issue badges. However, as Põldoja and Laanpere (2014) discovered, badges could have a larger potential if they become an integral part of the higher education assessment system. It may take time before the use of badges become a part of the assessment culture within higher education; however, without a solid IT infrastructure for badging, it is unlikely that badging will be able to make a larger impact.

In her capacity as Manager of Academic Services at CU Online, Crystal Gasell helps support technology integration and online learning at the university. She has led the university’s effort to support digital badges, at both technical and instructional levels. The following case takes on Crystal’s voice, outlining the university’s efforts and progress in this area.

4.1 LMS Integration

The majority of higher education institutions utilize a LMS for course delivery (Browne, Jenkins, & Walker, 2006). Additionally, over the last several years, the definitions of face-to-face, online, and hybrid courses has blurred due to the increasing number of faculty using a learning management system, which was traditionally for the delivery of online courses. The versatility of the systems on the market today afford a high percentage of faculty to adapt the learning management system as their classroom space. The LMS thus acts as a hub of learning with the integration of other tools—plagiarism detection, web conferencing, and test proctoring—resulting in a one stop shop for academic technology. If we want faculty to consider adoption of digital badges, convenient access from the LMS is a critical first step.

Mozilla’s Open Badges initiative provides a framework for recording and displaying badges, but lacks the streamlined process of creating and awarding badges attached to individual assignments or outcomes within a learning management system. For example, an instructor or program may wish to issue badges for completing a set of defined outcomes that demonstrates competency of a single skill. Within the LMS, an instructor can set up assignments or entire modules of content that require either a certain grade or completion to show competency. The integration into the LMS includes curating all badges issued by an institution, maintaining records of who issued badges, and what badges were awarded. Therefore, the first step was to investigate badging systems which integrate with our LMS, Canvas.

At the time of publication, two systems existed which provided a native application through an LTI connection with Canvas: BadgeSafe and Canvabadges.

  • BadgeSafe by Accreditrust offers a fully integrated, self-hosted or paid cloud hosted badging system that allows instructors to issue badges as the course, module, or assignment level. This added granularity provides flexibility to offer smaller credentials within a single course. BadgeSafe allows for badges to be exported to Mozilla’s Open Badges or secured issuing of badges through TrueCred, a compliant framework system.

  • Canvabadges is an integration from Brian Whitmer, founder of Instructure. This self-hosted or shared cloud solution allows instructors to issue badges based on final course grade or completion of a module. The lack of granularity for issuing badges and potential challenges of self-hosting makes this product less appealing at an institutional level. Canvabadges allows for badges to be exported to Mozilla’s Open Badges and through global CSS scripts, badges can be displayed on user profiles within Canvas.

Although technical challenges will vary by institution, at my institution, the hardware and services cost of a LINUX server and system administrator was cost prohibitive. Additionally, after an initial pilot, the uncertainty of relying on a shared server solution was also out of the question if our university wanted to adapt badges in earnest. Therefore, we selected BadgeSafe’s cloud hosted badging system as our platform for our pilot .

4.2 Implementation

Although an individual instructor may implement badges on his or her own using an open source badging platform, the opportunity to support both programs and the institution's larger mission requires careful planning and creates added complexity and costs.

After selecting the BadgeSafe product, the first hurdle became resource and administration. As the Canvas Administrator, our team is equipped to manage the installation, updates, and basic training for faculty and staff. However, it is unclear who, if anyone, should be responsible for maintaining the awarded badge records, certifying badges for quality, and growing adoption. With guidance from CU Online, a task force will be set up to guide answers for the following questions:

  • Who should be able to create/issue badges? Should training be required?

  • Who should maintain records of issued badges? Is this necessary?

  • Should the institution require certification for quality of badges? If so, who should be the governing group?

  • What steps should be taken to grow adoption?

  • What type of training should be provided? Should it be mandatory?

  • Should graphic design support be offered? If so, by whom?

Beyond administration, the other challenge being faced is inertia around the concept of badging. Without a lot of research pointing to a high value of badges in education, many faculty may be unwilling to devote large amounts of time to the exploration of educational badging. Additionally, faculty like Len, who has experimented with badges might find the efforts and challenges of the technical aspects of badging outweigh the benefits .

5 Future Vision

To date, our startup efforts have been fairly focused through engaging early adapters in small scale badging efforts. The larger potential of badges has yet to be uncovered at our institution. However, we envision a fairly broad role for badges in several critical areas of university work:

  • Outreach to potential students. Universities market their program not just to high-school seniors planning to stay in the freshman dorms, but to an array of groups; a number of paths are deliberately designed from high school, community college, bachelor’s degrees—into various certificate, degree, and licensure programs. Badges offered to these groups can help attract notice and invite people’s consideration of university programs at all levels and subject areas.

  • Free or low-risk entry courses. Many schools are offering MOOCs or low-cost courses as a way for students to “try out” their online fare. Badges offered for free or low-cost courses could be a way to certify learning from these experiences.

  • Continuing professional development offerings. Professionals may need refresher courses to keep their skills updated or grow expertise in targeted areas. Short of a degree, certificates consist of bundled courses. Short of a certificate, badges may be issued to certify continuing development through shorter or smaller-scale work—conference planning and participation, exams and competitions, community engagement, etc.

  • Partnership with employers and professional organizations. Digital badges may be part of an agreement made with outside partners such as employers or professional organizations, particularly when academic credit is not seen as central to the purpose or need of the relationship.

Overall these impacts serve to broaden services, strengthen ties, and solidify programs and degree offerings.

Badging initiatives can also impact the mission and identity of the university, e.g.:

  • Moving from traditional Carnegie units to a more competency-based model.

  • Larger role for competency assessment and multiple, flexible paths to competency

  • Greater differentiation based on prior expertise and experience

Historically, these approaches have been left to for-profit institutions and teaching universities; research institutions have been slow to think in terms of differentiation to student needs. Alternative learning resources coupled with badge certifications can begin to apply some pressure to mainstream institutions, to begin accommodating student differences more flexibly.

6 Issues and Recommendations

In the chapter’s introduction we outlined several issues facing start-up efforts for digital badges within a higher-education setting. We return to these issues below, with fresh commentary. These thoughts are based partly on direct experience, but also on our plans and expectations for continuing work.

  • Getting noticed and supported at the startup level. Institutions at the startup level should draw on existing communities of practice and professional networks for support. Additionally, institutions should seek out partnerships with innovative faculty, support staff, and administrators.

  • Sharing a vision for badges at various institutional levels (administration, support, and faculty). Look for areas of engagement within your school, college, or institution. Examine existing programs and priorities for areas of integration.

  • Developing a system that is simple, usable and drives adoption. Engage with IT and instructional support staff at an early stage, pilot badges with a willing faculty or program. Fine-tune technical infrastructure before committing to a scaled up model.

  • Supporting users (programs, faculty, and students) in their effective use of badges. Make badges a formal workload assignment for IT and instructional-support staff. Build and nurture a support community. Meet regularly with users to share new work and grow existing programs.

  • Aligning badge systems to the larger mission of the university and strengthening academic programs and degrees. This idea needs to the driving force from the start. Support of the initiative needs to be reviewed and supported at multiple levels of administration.

  • Ensuring high-quality assessment for learning and competency demonstration. As a part of the shared vision, establish a quality standard. Continue to share challenges and methods as a part of an institutional community, as well as with a larger community .

Many of these issues are inter-related, as are the responses. As a startup initiative, digital badges depend on local talent and resources, which are always limited. Change principles and models can provide grounding and serve as a reminder that digital badges are indeed an innovation, potentially “disruptive,” requiring some rethinking and new habits of practice.

We offer below a few general recommendations for people within universities who are looking for start and grow badge-related initiatives.

  • Enlist participation at all levels—faculty, program/department, admin, and instructional/technical support. Successful startups will enlist and engage participation at all levels, with cross-level exchanges particularly valuable in understanding the overall needs of the institution.

  • Give room for innovators to lead—but give support. People vary in their commitment levels, expertise, and range of influence. Thought leaders within the institution are particularly important, but passionate advocates on the margins can be equally valuable. Following Rogers’ diffusion theory (Rogers, 2003), early innovators need room and resources to tinker and explore and try things out, followed by more complete development of programs and support resources. Keeping things simple initially, with minimal bureaucracy and institutional obligation, can create a healthy environment for incubation. A small venture-fund investment in the innovators—perhaps a course buyout for a faculty member, or a special assignment for an instructional-support staff member—can yield significant gains at early stages.

  • Get people working/talking together. Like all bureaucracies, universities workers tend to suffer from isolation. A digital-badge working team may be drawn from disparate parts of the organization—but that’s a good thing. Crossing boundaries and communicating vertically and horizontally can strengthen the team and make the work representative of the university’s broader needs. The team should keep the administration informed frequently, with period updates and reports of new accomplishments.

  • Mark and celebrate milestone accomplishments. The badges team should look for excuses to party and celebrate accomplishments. Good news should be disseminated broadly to different academic units and administrative offices. Awareness of an innovation like digital badges takes sustained effort over time; good news should be at the front of this awareness effort.

Although we see promise in higher education regarding their participation and acceptance of badging, we ultimately return to our concern with being the Goliath—turning our heads and thinking our brute strength and armored tradition will see us through another storm. As badging gains popularity with employers, more organizations offer certifications and alternative methods of credentialing through badging, we will believe we will see more individual faculty, programs, and colleges begin to offer alternatives to the traditional transcript.