Are They Worth It?: Faculty Perceptions of Digital Badges

Introduction

Faculty centers are continually seeking new ways to enhance faculty development, especially for remote adjunct faculty. With over 1,500 faculty members nationwide, the majority of whom are adjunct and remote faculty, one teaching and learning center at a Midwest university saw the need for additional modes of recognition and certification. However, when faculty developers created a digital badging program with adjunct faculty in mind, the feedback after implementation was not what they expected. The results of this case study will offer a better understanding of faculty perspectives on digital badging systems as well as lessons learned from implementation.

Digital badges are a validated indicator of an accomplishment or a skill that can be earned at various learning institutions. While digital badging has grown in use and popularity over the past decade (Grant, 2014), its value and sustainability within the academic community of faculty in higher education is still debatable. Many institutions have implemented digital badging programs to recognize learning or validate professional development among faculty (Finkelstein, Knight, & Manning, 2013). When doing so, developers must methodically plan before faculty are introduced to the badging program. In their study on the impact of digital badging in education, Devedžić and Jovanović (2015) determined that various stakeholders’ perspectives are needed (e.g., faculty learner/badge earner, academic administration/badge viewer, teaching center/badge administrator) to develop and maintain a digital badging program. Additionally, instilling motivation in participants for digital badges is challenging but may be possible with a well-conceived instructional design (Devedžić & Jovanović, 2015).

Even after implementing a well-conceived badging program, faculty perceptions of the value offered by badges continues to be mixed (Dyjur & Lindstrom, 2017; Gamrat & Toomey, 2016). The amount of time and effort put forth by the faculty member to earn a badge varies per program, and the value of that badge varies per institution, circumstance, and faculty member. Grant (2014) claimed that distinguishing the amount of learning that goes into a particular badge can be challenging. While some badges may only require a limited amount of participation (e.g., watching three one-hour modules), others may require an extensive amount of participation (e.g., participating in a six-week workshop, applying the skills from the workshop to the classroom, and sharing the findings). According to Reid, badges are often produced in mass quantities by organizations, which often leads individuals to ask, “which badge is most valuable?” (2011, para. 4) and why? As a result, many faculty members struggle to distinguish a badge’s purpose, leading to a “value problem” (Kim, 2015). In other words, participants earn badges but remain unclear of their relevance once awarded.

The “value problem” continues to be a significant challenge for faculty developers. A faculty member may not see the value of digital badges for teaching and learning if there is no extrinsic reward or if the badges do not directly relate to their discipline, especially if faculty lack the time to complete the badges (Dailey-Hebert, Mandernach, Donnelli-Sallee, & Norris, 2014). This disconnect between digital badging programs and faculty perceptions of their value can lead to criticism of the available badging programs. For instance, Losh (2014) indicated that faculty felt badges might reduce academic programs instead of advancing continuous learning. Opponents were uncertain of their value and transferability. How might a digital badge, which may be earned in a day or months, equate to an academic degree, which takes a year or more to earn? Would badges be recognized universally or only at their original institution? Consequently, faculty developers need to carefully consider whether badging provides the recognition and validation of learning intended to support their faculty.