The potential of digital credentials to engage students with capabilities of importance to scholars and citizens

Abstract

Digital credentials (or badges) allow evidence of achievement to be more detailed than is possible through grades, and can be shared more broadly than is possible through the academic transcript. Here, we illustrate the potential use of digital credentials in higher education through sharing an approach that utilised digital credentials to recognise the achievement of students who demonstrate outstanding achievement of specific graduate attributes. More specifically, we explore the potential use of digital credentials to contribute to the development of citizen scholars through engaging students at the course (degree) level, promoting experiential learning and facilitating public sharing. The credentialing strategy described was designed to enhance employability, and the standards and criteria associated with the award were developed in collaboration with industry partners to give students the opportunity to differentiate themselves in the graduate job market. However, student applications, perceptions of the application process and feedback from industry partners who assessed the submissions suggest that an unintended, but positive, outcome of the credentialing strategy was promotion of students’ personal identity and broader social engagement. We suggest that digital credentials at course level could be a useful tool to engage students with graduate attributes, foster graduate identity and develop graduates who are active and engaged citizens.

Keywords

citizen scholar digital badge graduate capabilities work-integrated learning

The evolution of higher education

There has been much discussion in recent years about the role and future of universities (Den Hollander, 2015; Johnson et al., 2016; Oliver, 2016). The changing nature of the workplace has many commentators suggesting that higher education needs to be reimagined to ensure that the skills and knowledge developed meet industry expectations and prepare graduates for an uncertain future (Barnett, 2004; Norton, 2013; Oliver, 2016; Qenani et al., 2014). Universities are consequently exploring new ways to deliver education that equips graduates with capabilities that allow them to contribute to society, generate and disseminate knowledge on broad issues and meaningfully engage with communities (Deloitte Access Economics, 2015; Hill et al., 2016). The focus of higher education has shifted from an emphasis on inputs and objectives to the assurance of learning outcomes, including the development of both discipline-specific and generic graduate attributes (Boud, 2017; Freeman and Ewan, 2014). Universities need to equip graduates with more than just skills and knowledge specific to their chosen field; they must also develop broader transferable capabilities that will enable graduates to gain employment, contribute to society and adapt to change and uncertainty (Deeley, 2014; Green et al., 2009; Kinash et al., 2016; Yorke, 2006). Conventional classroom teaching is no longer seen as an optimal way to develop employability or to foster adaptability, and the importance of exposure to industry and real-world experiences is increasingly being recognised (Cranmer, 2006; Thompson et al., 2013). At the same time, the explosion of available information and a rapid rise in professionalism in university courses have emphasised information provision and competencies which may in turn miss ‘fostering the love of learning which is actually the key to flexibility and adaptability’ (Armstrong and Summerlee, 2016: 21).

While much of the emphasis on graduate attributes has been driven by an impetus to enhance graduate employability (Hill et al., 2016; Oliver, 2013), their importance in preparing graduates to be lifelong learners and citizens capable of exerting positive influence over social change has also been recognised. The concept of the citizen scholar, a student who cares about gaining and generating knowledge and applying that knowledge for the betterment of society, is a new expression of this broader role for universities in preparing the citizens of tomorrow (Arvanitakis and Hornsby, 2016b). Citizen scholars think critically, can work in diverse contexts and can adapt through change.

The academic achievements of students completing a degree are traditionally recorded and communicated through testamurs and academic transcripts. However, the nature of these is that they provide limited opportunity for graduates to demonstrate the skills and abilities associated with their graduate identity or worldview (Fain, 2014; Hinchliffe and Jolly, 2011; Jorre de St Jorre et al., 2016). Essential skills for the workplace or community, such as teamwork, problem solving and critical thinking, are not immediately obvious from these documents. According to Clark et al. (2015), ‘the choice of which extracurricular activity one pursues at university is less important than what one does within that activity and how well one communicates one’s achievements to recruiters’ (p. 144). Some have positioned these roles in opposition, suggesting that a focus on employability is at the detriment of outcomes that are important to students’ social and personal development. However, in the literature, there is much crossover if not total overlap between the broad categories of attributes identified as important to employers and industry bodies (Hajkowicz et al., 2016; National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), 2015; National Network, 2015), those that have been identified as necessary to develop citizen scholars (Arvanitakis and Hornsby, 2016a) and those actually articulated by universities (Oliver, 2011).

One view of graduate identity sees this as comprising value, intellect, social engagement and performance (Hinchliffe and Jolly, 2011). As students and graduates grapple with how they will present themselves as professionals through social and professional online media, a course-level digital credential is one way to provide a scaffolded way to develop this thinking. Hinchliffe and Jolly (2011) suggest that if graduates think about their values, engagement, intellect and performance, they can start to ‘think about and undertake the kinds of beings and doings that will make them more, not less, employable’ (p. 582).

Some universities have been developing new ways to evidence skills and attributes (Clark et al., 2015; Jackson, 2011), for example, issuing more detailed statements of academic achievement such as the European Diploma Supplement (European Commission Education and Training, 2010) and the Australian Higher Education Graduation Statement (AHEGS) (Australian Government, 2015). In addition to subjects and grades, these statements provide descriptions of the degree or award and the institution that issued it. However, these statements still do not elucidate the criteria by which students were assessed, standards or evidence of achievement in important aspects of graduate identity, such as values, intellect, social engagement and performance (Hinchliffe and Jolly, 2011).

Micro-credentials to evidence personalised achievement

Digital micro-credentials have emerged as a way of providing detailed and diverse evidence of achievement (Cross et al., 2014; McWhorter and Delello, 2015; Oliver, 2016). A digital credential or badge is an online graphic that links to information about the nature of the achievement, the work submitted, and the organisation awarding the credential (Cross et al., 2014; Lemoine and Richardson, 2015). Oliver (2016) suggests that 21C digital credentials have added affordances over more traditional credentials because they can be more granular (pinpointing where skills have been demonstrated), stackable (added to credential repositories and mapped to qualification frameworks), evidentiary (directing the reader to the evidence used to achieve the credential), personalised (accurately representing each individual learner’s achievements) and machine-readable (allowing for rich analytics) (see also Anderson and Staub, 2015; Bowen and Thomas, 2014). However, as with any credential, value is largely dependent on the credibility of the assessment process and the reputation of the assessor.

Research on the use of digital credentials in higher education is very much in its infancy, so questions remain over their role and value (Devedžić and Jovanović, 2015). Although they offer new opportunities for recognising and rewarding learning (Cross et al., 2014), some commentators argue that extrinsic motivators such as attainment of an award (e.g. a digital badge) can negatively impact learning (Wu et al., 2012), or that these credentials have ‘little meaning outside of their immediate context’ (Cross et al., 2014: 13). Others suggest more research is needed to understand student perceptions of digital credentials and their motivations to achieve them (Reid et al., 2015). There is a need to explore student and industry perceptions of a credentialing programme for students who can demonstrate outstanding skills in areas such as teamwork. Specifically, investigation should examine how the credential allows students to evidence skills above and beyond what they learn in their course (degree programme), and whether the approach has the potential to unite students’ immediate focus on employability with an appreciation of how their learning has contributed to meaningful engagement with their wider community.

Research method

The digital credentialing programme

Deakin Hallmarks are non-credit bearing university awards that require students to provide evidence of capabilities that are a priority for the discipline associated with their degree. Each award is associated with a specific degree to contextualise achievement, but is offered co-curricularly, and requires students to demonstrate achievement beyond grades. The awards, which each have a unique assessment design, were developed at Deakin University, Australia. Each award addresses one of Deakin’s graduate-learning outcomes, which articulate the capabilities that graduates are expected to develop through completion of their degree, and include communication, digital literacy, teamwork, critical thinking, problem solving, self-management and global citizenship. There are two foundational characteristics: (1) each Hallmark is developed in collaboration with industry partners to ensure the award warrants achievement that is meaningful in the workplace and (2) recipients of the award receive a digital credential that creates a rich record of achievement that can be shared publicly through social media and professional platforms such as LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/). The credential links to data describing the industry partners involved in the development of the assessment task, the criteria and standards of assessment, the identity of assessors (including industry partners) and digital artefacts demonstrating the work completed to achieve the credential.

Assessment design

One Deakin Hallmark, now offered annually, was designed to give students enrolled in the Bachelor of Environmental Science (Environmental Management and Sustainability) an opportunity to evidence their outstanding contributions to teamwork, a key skill for graduates. This Hallmark is constructed as a self-directed, extra-curricular opportunity for students who have completed at least one third of their degree. The standard of achievement required is different to the standard required by the degree, and indeed beyond the advanced standard demonstrated by high-achieving students. A student receiving the highest grades for teamwork within the taught curriculum may still not have sufficient evidence to apply for this Hallmark because he or she requires evidence of excellence from extra-curricular settings.

To be awarded the credential, applicants must demonstrate excellence in teamwork through submission of a digital portfolio that includes a narrative describing how the evidence they have curated meets the Hallmark standards which are as follows: a sustained and meaningful contribution to diverse teams, significant impact of teamwork on the field of environmental management and sustainability (within and beyond the course requirements), and development and/or implementation of creative and innovative ideas and/or processes within a team. Students are provided with examples of evidence that they might include in their portfolio but are given autonomy over how they address each of the standards, so applications are highly personalised. Evidence can include curated outputs (e.g. project artefacts, web sites, photos and campaigns), endorsements (e.g. grades/feedback, peer review, references and letters of recommendation) and personal reflections on teamwork experiences.

The award was offered for the first time in 2015. Students were introduced to the concept in August, with a second workshop held in October to outline the application process, and submissions were made in November. A similar schedule was followed in 2016, except applicants were also invited to submit drafts for formative feedback prior to formal submission.

Data collection and triangulation

We triangulated data from multiple sources, including evaluation and assessment artefacts, and in-depth interviews. Each data source was subject to qualitative analysis to identify commonly recurring themes (Miles et al., 2014). Illustrative, anonymous, quotes have been reported verbatim. Data collection was approved by the Deakin University Faculty of Arts and Education Human Ethics Advisory Group (Project HAE-16-026).

At the launch of this Hallmark, a short anonymous survey was distributed to investigate students’ initial perceptions, intent to apply, concerns and questions. All 34 students who attended the information session completed the survey. This represented approximately 15% of the total student enrolments in the course, and approximately 20% of the students eligible to apply (second and third year students). Most (74%) of the students at the information sessions were enrolled in the second year of their course (26% in third year). Three open-ended questions were posed: (1) ‘What are your initial thoughts about the Deakin Hallmarks programme?’ (2) ‘Do you think you will apply for the Hallmark this year? Why/Why not?’ and (3) ‘Do you have any questions you would like us to address in the detailed instructions for applicants?’

Applications submitted in 2015 and 2016 were analysed to investigate how students evidenced and articulated their capabilities and justified having met the Hallmark standards. This comprised five assessment artefacts. Narratives and portfolios included written information, video material and photos. Portfolios from successful (3) and unsuccessful (2) applicants were reviewed. In both 2015 and 2016, applications were assessed by a panel of five to six members, comprising Deakin University staff, industry partners and one graduate of the course. Assessment reports provided by three industry representatives were also analysed.

Two of three students who have achieved this award participated in semi-structured in-depth interviews investigating their application experience and perceptions of the credentialing strategy. Interviews took approximately 30 minutes. Interview questions were designed to explore student perceptions of the challenges and benefits associated with the extra-curricular work-integrated assessment strategy and to investigate what makes a credential meaningful. Interview transcripts were analysed to verify key themes drawn from analysis of the other data sources described.

Findings and discussion

Analysis suggests that students valued opportunities to evidence their employability and differentiate themselves to employers and that this was the greatest appeal of the credentialing strategy described. However, successful applicants for the credential found that the process of curating and articulating evidence of their achievement was actually more valuable than the credential itself, because it engaged them in reflection and self-assessment through which they could recognise their personal development. Another outcome was that the application process encouraged students to share aspects of their personal identity and broader social engagement, which was valued by the industry representatives who assessed their achievement.

These observations have implications for how we might utilise digital credentials to shape and share graduate identity both for the purpose of enhancing graduate employability and to support the development of citizen scholars. We describe three prominent themes that emerged from the data and implications for the value and design of digital credentials.

Students valued the opportunity to evidence their employability and differentiate themselves to employers

Students viewed the Hallmark programme favourably. Their initial impressions mostly focused on the value of the award for promoting employability and differentiating themselves from other graduates, for example, ‘It will seriously aid in showing potential employers a specific skill in the industry and could be the thing that makes the difference between me and someone else’. Students expressed appreciation for the programme being open to all students, not just those with high marks, and saw application as an opportunity to evidence and develop skills outside of the course curriculum. For example, one student wrote, ‘innovative and excellent idea to award student who cannot prove to be HD [High Distinction] academically minded rather situation smart!’ and another similarly suggested that the award was a ‘really interesting approach to crediting someone with skills other than academic’.

Likewise, recipients were primarily motivated by the opportunity to draw together and gain recognition for their achievements (especially extra-curricular activities), in a way that would differentiate them from other graduates: ‘I was getting close to graduating so I really wanted to sort of have something extra that separated me from other people’. They described having been attracted to the award because it gave them the opportunity to draw together evidence of their achievements in a way that was succinct, acknowledged and exclusive, for example, ‘it’s something that not everyone has, it is a bit exclusive which I like’ and

I think the main reason why I wanted to try and get behind it and try to apply for it is just to sort of build-up that sort of storyline of all these different times that I did do teamwork and try to compile it in a way that maybe made sense or in the way that it’s all succinct in one place and maybe use that as potential evidence for future opportunities.

Neither the recipients nor any other students had paid particular attention to the award being developed and assessed with input from industry. It may be that this element of the award was not communicated clearly enough to students, because those interviewed were vague or unsure about how the industry had been involved in the assessment and development of the award. However, both interview participants thought that this aspect of the award was favourable and suggested that they would emphasise it to others now that they had thought about it. Greater emphasis on industry involvement may provide additional motivation for students to apply for this or similar credentials.

The two award recipients appreciated the opportunity to communicate their achievement and share it widely through digital media and with a diverse audience. However, they emphasised that the warranting or ‘accreditation’ of their abilities through issue of the credential was its greatest value. Who issued the award (they were focused on the university) and the achievement it represented were also important to them. Although not asked directly, it is likely that these students would have applied for the award regardless of the type of credential offered (paper or digital). Thus, while digital credentials can be more easily shared and verified, and can convey more detailed evidence of achievement than can be captured on paper (e.g. a certificate or even an academic statement of achievement), assessment design and the credibility of the assessors and issuing institution are paramount to their value.

While the majority of students appreciated the opportunity to differentiate themselves from other graduates, of 34 students, 38% intended to apply and only one student subsequently applied for the award in the first year of offer. Among students who did not intend to apply (9%) or were unsure (53%), the most common reasons described were lack of time to develop the portfolio of evidence or insufficient evidence to demonstrate achievement of the standards required, for example, ‘I am unsure whether I meet the hallmark standards at this stage however I am willing to improve and will more likely apply next year’ or ‘I don’t know if I can achieve all 3 criteria’. One student questioned the value of the award, given it had only just commenced and had not yet established a reputation among employers; however, they were otherwise positive and noted they might apply suggesting that this attitude reflects caution rather than a negative appraisal of the programme. Students also indicated uncertainty about the sources of evidence that might be meaningful – ‘What would be considered reliable evidence to use?’ – and asked for examples – ‘Writing resources, like how to sell yourself’. Some students who did not think they had enough evidence yet, indicated that they would like to apply for the award in the future: ‘Definitely not enough evidence at this stage. Will prepare to apply in future years’. Unsurprisingly, application numbers increased in the second year of offer (from 1 to 4 applications).

Curating and articulating evidence of achievement engaged students in reflection and self-assessment through which they observed personal gains

Reflection on personal motivations, challenges and growth were also strongly evident in the assessment artefacts submitted by all applicants, and value from reflection and self-assessment was the benefit most strongly emphasised by the award recipients interviewed. This was not a benefit that either award recipient had personally anticipated. For example, one student was interested in applying so as ‘to highlight my understanding of my education and apply it to other situations’. Similarly, another student described their intent to self-assess and identify areas of improvement:

I have done quite a bit of extra-curricular activities, but selling them in the best light possible is difficult for me, [I] also want to self-assess exactly what I have got out of my teamwork experiences and where I can identify areas of improvement.

The award recipients described ways in which they had developed personally as a result of the application process, including gains in awareness and confidence related to how they operate within teamwork situations, how they articulate their skills and evidence – especially in relation to teamwork, and in how they seek or apply for opportunities. Both suggested that identifying and describing experiences that fit the criteria was challenging but rewarding:

‘I thought it was going to be a little tedious putting everything together but it was actually really, really good finding all of the evidence’ and:

I guess I probably thought a bit more broadly about what you actually did get out of uni, because I know a lot of people have plenty of group project assignment stories to tell. But also I think more about, like what sort of stuff have you done in the past, not just study wise but maybe it was in volunteering or within your job that you’ve actually started to build yourself up as a person and develop those skills, so, I think trying to think more broadly maybe have a greater self-awareness about where your skills are, where your skillset is and how you can keep improving that.

Curating and articulating evidence of achievement encouraged students to reflect on and share aspects of their personal identity and broader social engagement which was valued by industry

Analysis of the assessment artefacts and assessor feedback strongly support the effectiveness of the assessment design in allowing applicants to differentiate themselves through curating individualised evidence of their experience, development and achievements. However, a characteristic of the submitted portfolios and narratives, especially among successful applicants, was the sharing of their personal identity and broader social engagement.

Through their portfolios and narratives, applicants shared aspects of their personal identity framed around evidence of activities and development. While all five applicants curated evidence of their achievement through teamwork (the focus of the award), they also included evidence of broader social engagement, and reflected on their personal motivations, goals or intentions, especially in regard to social impact, for example, ‘I was both active listener and lively contributor when I thought my research could help other people learn more deeply’ and ‘I am passionate about making a difference in the local environment and incorporating sustainability, and also have a big interest in social justice’. Reported activities included demonstrations of leadership, creativity and innovation inside a team environment, for example, the development of a map to highlight the availability of Fairtrade products on campus, organisation of a team walk for ‘Do it in a Dress’ raising funds for education of girls in Sierra Leone and numerous other examples of initiating and organising events for societies or campaigns. Interestingly, the narratives themselves were more focused on the desire for social impact than on career ambitions.

Students’ narratives emphasised the development of agency through local, accessible action. Rather than focusing on achievement alone, applicants also reflected on challenges and personal growth, and described consequent motivation or intentions to impact others through drawing on those experiences, for example, ‘I am public about my radical life change experience and spend much of my time helping people that come to me with advice on beating addiction, depression and looking for motivation’ and ‘I think about how this transition can help me hone my skills and make the world a better place’. In doing so, applicants provided highly personalised evidence of their developmental journey.

The sharing of personal identity and broad social engagement was evident in all applications, but was strongest in applications that received the award. This was emphasised and praised by industry representatives who provided feedback as part of the assessment panel. For example, ‘I am blown away by the amazing amount of involvement this student has had in teams and in voluntary roles. Fabulous to see someone so young is achieving so much and making such a difference in the world’ and ‘examples and references were exemplary and showed a deep commitment to the environment and sustainability. His event planning and organising requires high levels of teamwork that he clearly portrayed through his narrative story’.

Analysis does not suggest that students were necessarily aware of the impact of their personal expression (it is likely they were not), but they were aware of having developed personally through articulating and thus gaining understanding of their own personal narratives, or as one participant described, their ‘story bank’:

I think a lot of people just want more evidence about things that you’ve done, and that could be relevant to the industry that they know you want to work in. So if you can prove to yourself that you’ve got those sorts of skills, and you’ve got that mental message bank or your story bank – I mean it could be for teamwork, it could be for problem solving, it could be for a myriad of different skills – I think that’s really, really essential to have, especially when you’re trying to apply yourself to various different jobs.

Student reflections within the portfolio and narrative also recognised the continual or lateral nature of personal development and one applicant explicitly acknowledged the impact of the application process:

Working towards this Hallmark has been a foundational motivating factor for me to arrange my course units in a way that I had time where I could focus on teamwork activities. This has also allowed me to make sustainable and meaningful contributions to a diverse range of extra-curricular activities and teams, each contributing towards the overall objectives that drive my passions fuelled by altruism, compassion and sustainability.

Applicants demonstrated aspects of graduate identity, that is, value, intellect, social engagement and performance.

Conclusion – shaping identities and worldviews

Analysis suggests that a targeted portfolio task and associated course-level digital credential can have value through (1) warranting achievement of a particular graduate attribute as evidence of employability, (2) encouraging students to reflect on their capabilities and personal development and (3) evidencing and sharing aspects of personal identity and broader contributions such as social engagement and citizen scholarship.

However, an additional benefit of the application process was that it provided students with an outlet to evidence their (often more profound and significant) contributions to the environment and broader community and to elucidate future aspirations. While much of the emphasis on graduate attributes has been driven by the impetus to enhance graduate employability (Oliver, 2011, 2015), the importance of graduate attributes for preparing graduates to be lifelong learners and citizens capable of exerting positive influence over social change has also been widely recognised (Arvanitakis and Hornsby, 2016b; Hinchliffe and Jolly, 2011; Star and Hammer, 2008). Our credentialing strategy appears to have united students’ immediate motivation of employment with self-awareness, passion for social change and communication of worldviews. In doing so, it gave students the opportunity to demonstrate both their employability and the ‘hallmarks’ of a citizen scholar, including creativity and innovation, resilience, working across teams and across experiences and design thinking (e.g. people-centred and ethical leadership) (Arvanitakis and Hornsby, 2016a). While interviews with recipients of the award suggest that their biggest motivation for applying for the credential was the opportunity to differentiate themselves and demonstrate their employability, the assessment artefacts themselves more strongly emphasised applicants’ desire to contribute to the world around them.

It is important to acknowledge that the students applying for this particular credential contextualised their teamwork contributions within the discipline of environmental management and sustainability, and may have different motivations to students from other disciplines. In the context of digital credentialing, it may be that students with intrinsic motivations to demonstrate achievement of a skill, rather than just an extrinsic reward (that is, the credential or badge), are most likely to participate (see Boud, 1990; Cross et al., 2014; Jovanović and Devedžić, 2015), and that credentials aligned with these goals are more likely to be successful and sustainable (Wu et al., 2012).

This study offers reflections and preliminary insights after the introduction of the first Deakin Hallmark. This case study focuses on one cohort of students in a single discipline in one university, and thus, we cannot conclude that the results here would be the same for other students in other contexts. It is also important to note that the Hallmarks programme is designed to be aspirational, and thus, many students may feel that they cannot meet the standards or that they may apply but not be selected for the award. Parallel employability strategies can offer other ways of engaging students with graduate-learning outcomes, so the relative contribution of this strategy will be further investigated in context. Avenues for future research on the use of digital credentials for employability include inquiries focusing on measurable outcomes, perceptions and impact on conventional curriculum including outcomes for recipients of digital credentials and association with future employment and career trajectory, industry perceptions of a digital credential designed to evidence outstanding achievement of key proficiencies, the role of the digital credential in informing curriculum development and appropriate scaffolding of graduate-learning outcomes through courses.

A digital credential incorporating a portfolio task, as outlined here, provides educators with a valuable tool that fosters the student proficiencies that underpin the concept of the citizen scholar and may be a valuable tool for students in considering and evidencing their personal identity. This approach could be used as one tool among many to enhance graduate employability and support the development of a citizen who, in one way or another, makes a meaningful contribution to society.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Beverley Oliver, the Deakin University Hallmarks Committee, and the Deakin University Environmental Sciences Advisory Board for their assistance in this work. We also thank the Deakin Hallmark assessors, applicants and other students who have embraced this new learning tool and contributed to its development and implementation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Kelly K Miller is an Environmental Social Scientist in the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at Deakin University and Course Director for the Bachelor of Environmental Science (Environmental Management and Sustainability). Her teaching and research interests focus on the human dimensions of wildlife management and environmental sustainability, and environmental education. She also leads projects on curriculum renewal, work-integrated learning and community engagement. Address: Centre for Integrative Ecology, School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. [email: kelly.miller@deakin.edu.au]

Trina Jorre de St Jorre is a Lecturer in Graduate Employability at Deakin University. She is interested in pedagogies that engage and empower students, and her research focus is on assuring graduate capabilities, improving employment outcomes and incorporating the student voice into curriculum development. Address: Deakin Learning Futures, Deakin University, Level 12, Tower 2, 727 Collins Street, Melbourne, VIC 3008, Australia. [email: trina.j@deakin.edu.au]

Jan M West is the Associate Head of School (Teaching and Learning) in the School of Life and Environmental Sciences at Deakin University. Jan’s contribution to teaching and learning spans curriculum renewal, student recruitment, transition support, academic progress, research supervision and mentoring, as well as colleagues’ induction, mentoring and professional development. Address: School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. [email: jan.west@deakin.edu.au]

Elizabeth D Johnson is the Pro Vice Chancellor, Teaching and Learning, at Deakin University where she leads the Deakin Learning Futures, the central divisional team that supports learning and teaching. She is a National Teaching Fellow with research interests in work-integrated learning, curriculum renewal and building capability for learning and teaching. She is also Director of the Teaching and Learning Centre of the Australian Council of Deans of Science, leading a number of national projects to enhance university teaching in science. Address: Deakin Learning Futures, Deakin University, Melbourne Burwood Campus, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, VIC 3125, Australia. [email: liz.johnson@deakin.edu.au]

References

Anderson

Staub

(2015) Postgraduate digital badges in higher education: Transforming advanced programs using authentic online instruction and assessment to meet the demands of a global marketplace. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 195: 18–23.

Armstrong

Summerlee

AJS

(2016) In search of the citizen scholar: Modern pedagogical approaches compared. In: Arvanitakis

Hornsby

(eds) Universities, the Citizen Scholar and the Future of Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 21–36.

Arvanitakis

Hornsby

(2016a) Are universities redundant? In: Arvanitakis

Hornsby

(eds) Universities, the Citizen Scholar and the Future of Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 7–20.

Arvanitakis

Hornsby

(eds) (2016b) Universities, the Citizen Scholar and the Future of Higher Education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Australian Government (2015) Australian higher education graduation statement. Available at: https://www.education.gov.au/australian-higher-education-graduation-statement (accessed 19 January 2017).

Barnett

(2004) Learning for an unknown future. Higher Education Research & Development 23(3): 247–60.

Boud

(1990) Assessment and the promotion of academic values. Studies in Higher Education 15(1): 101–11.

Boud

(2017) Standards-based assessment for an era of increasing transparency. In: Carless

Bridges

Ka Yuk Chan

. (eds) Scaling up Assessment for Learning in Higher Education. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 19–31.

Bowen

Thomas

(2014) Badges: A common currency for learning. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 46(1): 21–5.

10.

Clark

Marsden

Duncan Wyatt

, et al. (2015) ‘It’s everything else you do …’: Alumni views on extra-curricular activities and employability. Active Learning in Higher Education 16(2): 133–47.

11.

Cranmer

(2006) Enhancing graduate employability: Best intentions and mixed outcomes. Studies in Higher Education 31(2): 169–84.

12.

Cross

Whitelock

Galley

(2014) The use, role and reception of open badges as a method for formative and summative reward in two Massive Open Online Courses. International Journal of E-assessment 4(1): n.p.

13.

Deeley

(2014) Summative co-assessment: A deep learning approach to enhancing employability skills and attributes. Active Learning in Higher Education 15(1): 39–51.

14.

Deloitte Access Economics (2015) The Importance of Universities to Australia’s Prosperity: A Report Prepared for Universities Australia. Brindabella, ACT, Australia: Deloitte Access Economics.

15.

Den Hollander

(2015) A brave new world of higher education. In: Australia’s Future Workforce? (Committee for Economic Development of Australia). Available at: http://www.ceda.com.au/CEDA/media/ResearchCatalogueDocuments/Research%20and%20Policy/PDF/26792-Futureworkforce_June2015.pdf (accessed 3 November 2017).

16.

Devedžić

Jovanović

(2015) Developing open badges: A comprehensive approach. Educational Technology Research and Development 63(4): 603–20.

17.

European Commission Education and Training (2010) The diploma supplement (12 July 2010). Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc1239_en.htm (accessed 5 May 2011).

18.

Fain

(2014) Badging from within. Inside Higher Education. Available at: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/03/uc-daviss-groundbreaking-digital-badge-system-new-sustainable-agriculture-program (accessed 20 December 2016).

19.

Freeman

Ewan

(2014) Good Practice Report: Assuring Learning Outcomes and Standards. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching.

20.

Green

Hammer

Star

(2009) Facing up to the challenge: Why is it so hard to develop graduate attributes? Higher Education Research and Development 28(1): 17–29.

21.

Hajkowicz

Reeson

Rudd

, et al. (2016) Tomorrow’s digitally enabled workforce: Megatrends and scenarios for jobs and employment in Australia over the coming twenty years. CSIRO, Brisbane.

22.

Hill

Walkington

France

(2016) Graduate attributes: Implications for higher education practice and policy. Journal of Geography in Higher Education 40(2): 155–63.

23.

Hinchliffe

Jolly

(2011) Graduate identity and employability. British Educational Research Journal 37(4): 563–84.

24.

Jackson

(2011) Recognising a more complete education through a Lifewide Learning Award. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning 1(3): 247–61.

25.

Johnson

Adams

Cummins

, et al. (2016) NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. Austin, TX: The New Media Consortium.

26.

Jorre de St Jorre

Johnson

Oliver

(2016) Deakin hallmarks: Principles for employability credentials. In: Proceedings ASCILITE 2016 Show Me the Learning (ed Barker

Dawson

Pardo

, et al.), Adelaide, SA, Australia, 28–30 November, pp. 305–11. Available at http://2016conference.ascilite.org/wp-content/uploads/ASCILITE-2016-full-proceedings-Updated-1512.pdf (Accessed 3 Nov 2017).

27.

Jovanović

Devedžić

(2015) Open badges: Novel means to motivate, scaffold and recognize learning. Technology, Knowledge and Learning 20(1): 115–22.

28.

Kinash

Crane

Judd

(2016) Good practice report: Nurturing graduate employability in higher education. Research report, Report prepared for the Australian Government Office for Learning and Teaching, Learning and Teaching Papers no. 136. Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/tls/136 (accessed 23 January 2017).

29.

Lemoine

Richardson

(2015) Micro-credentials, nanodegrees, and digital badges: New credentials for global higher education. International Journal of Technology and Educational Marketing 1(5): 36–49.

30.

McWhorter

Delello

(2015) Green computing through virtual learning environments. In: Nafukho

Irby

(eds) Handbook of Research on Innovative Technology Integration in Higher Education. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference, pp. 1–28.

31.

Miles

Huberman

Saldana

(2014) Qualitative Data Analysis. London: SAGE.

32.

National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE) (2015) Job Outlook 2016: Attributes Employers Want to See on New College Graduates’ Resumes. Bethlehem, PA: NACE.

33.

National Network (2015) Common Employability Skills: A Foundation for Success in the Workplace. National Network of Business and Industry Associations. Available at http://nationalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Common_Employability_Skills-03-30-152.pdf (Accessed 3 Nov 2017).

34.

Norton

(2013) Mapping Australian higher education, 2013 version, Grattan Institute. Available at: https://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/875-Mapping-Australian-Higher-Education-2016.pdf (accessed 23 January 2017).

35.

Oliver

(2011) Assuring Graduate Outcomes Good Practice Report. Sydney, NSW, Australia: The Australian Learning and Teaching Council.

36.

Oliver

(2013) Graduate attributes as a focus for institution-wide curriculum renewal: Innovations and challenges. Higher Education Research and Development 32(3): 450–63.

37.

Oliver

(2015) Assuring Graduate Capabilities: Evidencing Levels of Achievement for Graduate Employability. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Office for Learning and Teaching.

38.

Oliver

(2016) Better 21C Credentials: Evaluating the Promise, Perils and Disruptive Potential of Digital Credentials. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Deakin University.

39.

Qenani

MacDougall

Sexton

(2014) An empirical study of self-perceived employability – Improving the prospects for student employment success in an uncertain environment. Active Learning in Higher Education 15(3): 199–213.

40.

Reid

Paster

Abramovich

(2015) Digital badges in undergraduate composition courses: Effects on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Computers in Education 2(4): 377–98.

41.

Star

Hammer

(2008) Teaching generic skills: Eroding the higher purpose of universities, or an opportunity for renewal? Oxford Review of Education 34(2): 237-251.

42.

Thompson

Clark

Walker

, et al. (2013) ‘It’s just like an extra string to your bow’: Exploring higher education students’ perceptions and experiences of extracurricular activity and employability. Active Learning in Higher Education 14(2): 135–47.

43.

W-H

Hsiao

H-C

P-L

, et al. (2012) Investigating the learning-theory foundations of game-based learning: A meta-analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 28(3): 265–79.

44.

Yorke

(2006) Employability in Higher Education: What It Is, What It Is Not (Learning and Employability Series 1). York: Higher Education Academy. Available at: https://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resource/employability-higher-education-what-it-what-it-not (accessed 20 December 2016).