Open Thinkering

Menu

Month: July 2012

My elevator pitch for #openbadges (v0.1 alpha) [VIDEO]

(video not showing? click here)

Today I did a fairly average job of explaining Open Badges to a roomful of people. I need to work on my elevator pitch.

This one from last year by people more eloquent than me is pretty good.

I recorded the above video in one take when I got back home. My reason for recording it was because I want to get better at explaining Open Badges to the uninitiated.

Questions:

  1. What’s confusing?
  2. Which questions would you ask me after I presented this?
  3. How do I come across?

I find Open Badges such a huge and nuanced thing that I may leave out really obvious stuff. Have a look at http://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges for a deeper dive if I’ve whetted your appetite!

Aim for the high ground, not the high horse.

Mountains in mist

Yesterday, fellow Mozillian Gervase Markham wrote these lines:

The Internet is one of the greatest drivers of human prosperity and happiness the world has ever seen. The ability to communicate easily across long distances, for business or pleasure, has enabled unimagined trade, friendship and connection. It has empowered many people. However, the free Internet as we know it is under threat – from governments, businesses and organizations who want to control or restrict what information passes. And when control and restriction increases, for whatever reason, opportunity and innovation suffer collateral damage.

That’s why my ethical career choice is to work for Mozilla, an organization which aims to preserve and protect the open Internet as a level playing field where everyone can communicate, contribute and take full part – without having to pay gatekeepers, have a relationship with particular companies, or give up their privacy or security.

Working for a non-profit, just as being (for example) a teacher, or a doctor means occupying the high ground.

I believe we should all be aiming for the high ground.

You know, there’s a phrase in English “getting on your high horse‘. This indicates that you’re ‘better’ or ‘more intelligent’ than other people. That’s not what I’m getting at.

What I think we should be aiming for is individual and community flourishing. I believe that acting as though we’re in competition with one another damages this.

We’re all in this together.

Aiming for the high ground means acting in accordance with the Golden Rule:

One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

So, no matter what your faith this Sunday, think about your career choices. Think about your shopping habits. And most of all, every time you’re faced with a choice, opt for the one that promotes human flourishing.

Image CC BY ^riza^

On the important differences between literacies, skills and competencies.

Literacies, skills and competencies

I’ve currently knee-deep in web literacies stuff for Mozilla.

Or should that be web skills?

Or perhaps web competencies?

It’s a complex, contested, and nuanced area. The differences between literacies, skills and competencies shouldn’t merely be glossed over and ignored. These differences are important.

Let me explain.

Literacies

Literacy is the ability to read and write. Traditionally, this has meant the ability to read and write using paper as the mediating technology. However, we now have many and varied technologies requiring us to ‘read’ and ‘write’ in different ways. As a result we need multiple literacies.

Because literacy depends upon context and particular mediating technologies there is, to my mind, no one literacy to ‘rule them all’. Literacy is a condition, not a threshold.

Skills

A skill is a controlled activity (such as a physical action) that an individual has learned to perform. There are general skills (often called transferable skills) as well as domain-specific skills.

Skills are subject to objective thresholds. So, for example, badges awarded by Scouting organisations signify the reaching of a pre-determined level of skill in a particular field.

Competencies

A competence is a collection of skills for a pre-defined purpose. Often the individual with the bundle of skills being observed or assessed has not defined the criteria by which he or she is deemed to be ‘competent’.

Competencies have the semblance of objectivity but are dependent upon subjective judgements by another human being (or beings) who observe knowledge, skills and behaviours.

Conclusion

The important point to make here is that whilst competencies can be seen as ‘bundles of skills’, literacies cannot. You cannot become literate merely through skill acquisition – there are meta-level processes also required. To be literate requires an awareness that you are, indeed, literate.

That sounds a little weird, but it makes sense if you think it through. You may be unexpectedly competent in a given situation (because you have disparate skills you have pulled together for the first time). But I’m yet to be convinced that you could be unexpectedly literate in a given situation.

And, finally, a skill is different to a literacy in the sense that the latter is always conditional. An individual is always literate for a purpose whereas a skill is not necessarily purpose-driven and can be well-defined and bounded.

Does this resonate with you?

css.php