In the article “When Learning and Assessment Diverge: Who and What are We Assessing?” Gee has given me a new prospective on assessments. Assessments have not been traditionally created to measure what a learner can achieve. In other words, learners who learn at a different pace are at a disadvantage when it comes to being evaluated with assessments. In EDU 521, we had a very engaging online discussion about assessments. Unfortunately, assessments are often the tools used to evaluate entire school districts, and can be the determine factor when it comes to funding. The problem is that there can be several factors that attribute to the inaccuracy of those assessments. The rate in which a student learns, and inadequate resources are among those issues. In addition, some of the assessments offer little to motivate a learner from doing their best.
That leads me into this idea of badges. To Colin Matthews point, a badge is only valuable to the place it came from. For example, I am doing my “Learn Something” project in EDU522 on effective use of Elementor to create my website pages. If I earn the L2 badge associated with that project, it doesn’t mean the CEO of Elementor will be recruiting me to work for the company. It does give me a sense of accomplishment, and satisfaction that I successfully completed the project.
Looking at this from the gaming prospective, especially as an affinity space, that space/game typically has meaning to the participant. Therefore, earning a badge in that affinity space has meaning. The problem there is that sometimes a badge for a game is designed to take a significant amount to time to earn. That’s when gamers can become obsessed over completing a particular mission.
So are badges and assessments helping or hurting learning? I don’t know, but I do feel strongly in this sentiment:
It is time, I think, for assessment and testing to move into the future (Gee)