This year's Digital Media and Learning competition will centre around "Badges for Lifelong Learning." The collaborators constitute a powerful coalition of US government agencies, social institutions, funding bodies, universities, and major US corporations. Their goal is to create an interoperable ecosystem of badges (based on the Mozilla Open Badges Infrastructure) which take learning out of the classroom and into communities and on the web. Is this wise? Is this project the fourth horseman of a coming Badgepocalypse, in which broken assumptions from the classroom about human motivation are imposed onto the rest of society? Or does it offer a powerful means to encourage and recognise genuine learning conducted outside the classroom?
Badges for Lifelong Learning
The proponents of badges want to offer a chance for institutions to recognise "skills and achievements gained outside of school." The Mozilla Open Badges Initiative wants to give everyone a virtual "Badge Backpack" which accrues badges in recognition for skills and achievements. They hope these badges will supplement resumes as well as reward people for community involvement. The organisers of the Digital Media & Learning competition take this idea further, hoping that badges will lead people to "level up," growing their capabilities and experience through activities which are rewarded over time with a hierarchy of badges. Good badge systems, according to the organisers, "allow individuals to take on roles or build identity," granting the individual new opportunities and privileges across many organisations. At their most basic, badges may well solve two great goals: providing a means to motivate young people while also expanding institutions' ability to track and assess what people do.
Objections to Badges
As exciting as this sounds, it may not be a good thing to saturate society with a network of badge-focused activity. Do badges work for everyone? Even if they work, do we want a society in which hierarchy, self-interest, public recognition, and micro-surveillance are built into our every institution and every action? Might such a system be a historical inevitability? If so, how can we ensure that badge systems possess the fairness, equality, and privacy which a liberal democracy needs?
The first objection to badges is that rewards and praise do not work for everyone. In Self-Theories, Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development, psychologist Carol Dweck argues that not everyone is suited to the "mastery-oriented," confident learning style rewarded by badges, a style associated with challenges, effort, and persistence. Highly skilled students often report high levels of doubt. Success itself is not very rewarding for them. Dweck argues that praise "can lead learners to fear failure, avoid risks, doubt themselves when they fail, and cope poorly with set-backs" (Dweck, 2). She suggests that learners' responses to praise and rewards will depend on their personal theory of knowledge combined with how they rate themselves. In some cases, reward systems can reinforce a learner's view that he or she is incapable, trapping the learner in cycles of failure. In others, fear of failure leads even bright learners to choose easy tasks in order be praised and minimise the risk of failure.
Another objection to badges is that external assessment is unable to promote the most rewarding benefits of learning: the subjective experience of full engagement with a learning activity. In his much-lauded book and talks on Flow, the psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi explores powerful experiences in which "concentration is so intense that there is no attention left over... to worry about problems," an experience in which "self-consciousness disappears and the sense of time becomes distorted" (Csikszentmihalyi, 71). He calls these moments "optimal experiences," and argues that we can design experiences, or "flow activities," which are more likely to grant flow than others. To illustrate this, he distinguishes between games involving competition and chance from experiential games which alter our consciousness in some way. Competition and achievement risk leading us to anxiety or boredom. Activities such as dance however lead us to value the experience itself, teasing us with the promise of optimal experience.
Drawing from the utilitarian philosophical tradition and the Enlightenment values of Western democracies, Csikszentmihalyi reminds us that our views of pleasure and rewards are ultimately political values-- especially if we believe that the best societies promote the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest number of people. In this view, badges are a basic political good only if they enable people to more effectively pursue happiness. However, if rewards and praise draw us away from the most optimal experiences of happiness, then they should be avoided. Csikszentmihalyi echoes the moral philosopher James Carse when he argues that we can imagine life as a game in which the players are encouraged to seek optimal personal experiences, moderated by moral principles which ensure the promotion of happiness among everyone.
We can easily imagine that learners who are motivated to seek the experience of flow do not need rewards or praise. Instead, they should be provided with opportunities to learn whilst enjoying these optimal experiences. In the worst case, rewards and praise may draw learners away from the chance to enjoy these powerful experiences.
Flow may not be the only motivation which is unaccounted by systems of reward. In his book Punished By Rewards, Alfie Kohn argues that the most meaningful motivations are undermined by an emphasis on rewards. Kohn disagrees with behaviourism, a philosophy of psychology which aims to describe organisms entirely in terms of observable stimuli and behaviours, without reference to minds. Behaviourism has been popular with institutions because it is very compatible with quantifiable rewards and measurable behaviour. Kohn points out that many of the most wonderful parts of experience, from love, kinship, and aesthetics to altruism and faith are very difficult to measure.
Kohn also argues that rewards are particularly bad at encouraging long-term behaviours rooted in personal integrity. Even when it comes to more concrete behaviours, such as quitting smoking or wearing seatbelts, Kohn cites research which shows limited, short-term effectiveness for rewards systems-- which sometimes result in higher recidivism rates once the rewards are discontinued (Kohn, 40). Kohn and others such as Teresa Amabile, a researcher on creativity at the Harvard Business School, argue that rewards don't improve performance. Instead, they discourage creativity, learning, and risk taking. Furthermore, even if rewards and praise were effective means to motivate people, they are still unlikely to work, for people are very bad at identifying what motivates others.
Kohn tries to account for why rewards might be so ineffective at promoting creativity and long-term change. Sometimes people do not receive the rewards they desire or expect. Rewards undermine relationships among peers epecially when competition is involved. They also warp relationships with authority, replacing trust and collaboration with self-interest and fear. Rewards and punishment also bypass reason; the learner is expected to do something not because it is rational or right, but because it is rewarded. Citing Amabile, Kohn argues that rewards discourage risk-taking and high achievement because they tend to promote basic compliance with well-defined instructions, reinforcing past behaviours rather than encouraging creativity. As an example, Kohn points out that children who are rewarded for reading tend to choose short books rather than interesting ones ("The Trouble with Carrots," Kohn).
Kohn argues that rewards also work in pernicious ways upon those in authority. He worries that those who motivate others with carrots and sticks come to see others as unmotivated and lazy. The practice of giving rewards creates a cycle of cynicism and mistrust which leads to low expectations and greater reliance on extrinsic motivators. Such environments, which I have personally witnessed in factories, schools, and call-centres, are the most depressing places I have ever known. I am especially concerned about the influence of badges on parents, since badges combine mobile surveillance with notions of measurable success. Too many parents destroy their parental relationships when they treat their childrens' achievements as a fantasy league, competing with other parents over quantified notions of success.
Motivational theories based on Flow or rewards assume that people are basically selfish and ought to be motivated in reference to that self interest. Yochai Benkler disagrees in his recent book The Penguin and the Leviathan. Benkler argues that cooperation and trust are more natural human motivations, leading to greater societal good than self interest (podcast here). He builds his arguments from case studies in business and finance, as well as recent research in experimental psychology. Benkler argues that the systems we design need to account for social notions such as empathy, solidarity, morality, fairness, and trust. In this model, rewards are only one small part of motivation rather than the common component which links all motivation and learning.
Not all objections to badges take issue with their effectiveness. For example, if the technology of badges is inequally distributed, then badges may reproduce and amplify injustices which already exist in society (c.f. Esther Hargittai, "The Digital Reproduction of Inequality"). I want to consider two such arguments in particular detail: concerns about unintended detriments of badge technology, and political concerns about what it would mean to permeate society with badges.
In her book Alone Together, Sherry Turkle shares a large number of cases in which important parts of social life such as trust, concentration, autonomy, happiness, and privacy can be undermined and cheapened by mediating them with mobile technology. To some degree, many young people are already using mobile technology in an ad hoc system of badges-- using cameraphones to seek the approval of their peers while struggling with the level of surveillance maintained by their parents. Turkle argues that unmediated and uninterrupted human contact, concentration, and privacy are essential for childhood development and civic life. Creating a society-wide system of badges may simply accelerate and enshrine the unhelpful behaviours which already accompany mobile technologies.
My final and most concerning objection to badges is a political one. If carried to its full aspirations, a system of Badges for Lifelong Learning would go further than to simply record each person's every interaction with any organisation throughout life. Badges are fundamentally normative, offering rewards for behaviours that institutions consider to be good, while also offering quantitative judgments on people's character. Badges are fundamentally discriminatory, ranking people for good behaviour using hierarchies that are designed by those same institutions. Every one of our actions would be open to inclusion in a C.V. of personhood which determines our ability to get a job or be respected by our community. I admit that I am personally drawn to the moral simplicity of the utilitarian principles inherent in badges. It is also true that the notion of choice offers some degree of autonomy and liberty. Nevertheless, I agree with Foucault that the system of extrinsic motivations, institutionalised identity, and surveillance found in schools, the military and prisons are a form of structural social control which should be resisted within society as a whole.
Arguments in Favour of Badges
Perhaps this dystopian vision of social control is an overreaction. Society is already overrun with surveillance, and badges offer the possibility of greater equality. Educators can use them to argue for improved creative and community learning. Badges offer a chance for transparent evaluation of social institutions. Many good social institutions already use rewards, including sports, the military, videogames, and scouting. Data from badges might be used to gain a greater understanding of creativity and participation. Badges may even change our notion of the good life away from self-interested utilitarian values towards a more Aristotelian notion of virtue and civic good.
I love the basic rationale for the Mozilla Open Badges Infrastructure: giving people proper credit for participation in innovative learning experiences. Online learning providers, maker communities, charities, and traditional scouting-style organisations can all award badges which employers and admissions offices can choose to recognise. If managed well, the Mozilla system could open up education to powerful forms of innovation.
Furthermore, the moral values implied by badges have practical, achievable applications. When we measure life to fine detail, and when we decide that the good society seeks the greatest good for the greatest number, we can take measurable steps toward achieving that good. We can also quantify our progress, identifying needs and room for improvement. Modern notions of equality, as well as our understanding of deprivation and discrimination all rely on utilitarian ideas. Measuring everyone's social behaviour, we might argue, isn't primarily directed at evaluating individuals. Instead, it offers greater transparency on the impact of our institutions. The democratic public needs to ensure that our tax money is used to create the greatest possible good in the educational organisations we fund. Consumers can use badges to make informed choices about their learning experiences. Overall, Badges for Lifelong Learning could enable us to encourage good social institutions and help us reform ineffective ones.
Furthermore, badges can help us make the case for creative and community learning in an era which overly promotes more measurable endeavours. It is a great problem in society that things which are quantifiable are more easily funded than things which cannot be easily quantified. Perhaps the greatest outcome of badges will not be changes in the behaviour of learners but changes in the priorities of institutions. If we can assign badges and hierarchies of attainment to subjective areas such as cooperation, creativity, and the arts, then we might be able to convince politicians to take them more seriously. Sociometrics consultants already track office workers in order to convince corporations to create more humane environments. Might badges be an equivalent rhetorical technique in the politics of education?
When we look at contemporary society, it also seems clear that badges and rewards do motivate people. Online videogames seem to elicit high degrees of loyalty from players. "Gamified" marketing initiatives draw in large numbers of customers. Badge systems for learning and civic participation may lead people to have the same dedication to learning that they exhibit towards videogames.
Digital badge systems also offer the possibility of calibrating learning experiences in relation to sophisticated models of participation. Roger Hart's work on The Ladder of Participation as well as a recent UK study on Pathways to Participation offer nuanced models of individuals' changing participation in communities over time. If institutions share data, they might be able to offer opportunities which are personalised to an individual's interests and ability. A badge system which follows learners throughout their lives offers a practical framework for this kind of sophisticated coordination.
Even if data sharing is impractical, badges can achieve an obvious good: taking learning out of the classroom and into the community. Schools are socially isolating by their nature. Perhaps classrooms encourage antisocial behaviour by creating systems of value which are dissociated from the neighbourhoods where young people live. Badges may expand the value already offered by programmes like Flat Stanley, exposing young people to real stories within their community and their world. If adults from all parts of life can award badges to young people and assess their growth, everyone's relationships and connections to community life might be enhanced.
Finally, we should recognise that badges offer a more nuanced model of motivation than simple reward and praise. By encouraging learners to associate their identity with assessed activity, badges draw from a moral philosophy distinct from utilitarianism: the notion of virtue. Most notably popularised by the philosopher Michael Sandel in his books, talks, and television shows on justice, virtue ethics proposes an alternative to calculating of what is best for everyone (utiltarianism) or judging the right thing to do (deontological ethics). Instead, virtue ethics asks us who we want to be as individuals and as a community.
Badges may turn virtue ethics into a practical aim. If corporal punishment and catechisms are the technologies of deontological ethics, and if the grade-book is the technology of utilitarianism, perhaps the badge is the technology of virtue, helping us imagine and achieve positive visions of character. Even if this is too optimistic, perhaps badges offer a fundamentally different moral vision from the utilitarianism which so concerned Foucault.
Steeering The Future
Arguments in favour or against badges may be irrelevant if we accept that society will inevitably adopt them. Once we accept that claim, we have a responsibility to shape this trend for good. In his thorough and entertaining 2010 talk for The Long Foundation, "Visions of the coming Gamepocalypse," the professor and game designer Jesse Schell argues that the widespread adoption of badges in society is inevitable and already here. Perhaps responsible designers should work to ensure that badges and games become a force for good rather than just another form of advertising.
Privacy is an especially important area for the future of badges. In theory, the Mozilla Open Badges initiative will offer learners the opportunity to control their privacy through the Badge Backpack. Nevertheless, the Digital Media and Learning competition does not require participants to submit privacy plans as part of their contest submissions. Privacy is a central concern for the concept of badges, since they are expected to stay with learners throughout their lives. Principled interventions are deeply needed.
Another way to steer the future is to offer alternative quantitative visions of learning. Consider for example, "The End", a game by Preloaded and Channel 4 which aims to help non-religious teenagers make sense of viewpoints about death. As players make choices about death, the game situates their decisions in relation to major philosophical viewpoints. It also introduces them to famous historical figures who held similar views. "The End" does not offer a normative vision or encourage players to "level up" their understanding of death. Instead, it uses quantitative techniques to aid self discovery and assist a learner's exploration of this deeply personal issue.
Concluding Thoughts
I accept that Badges for Lifelong Learning cannot account for all learning styles and will certainly harm some young people. Nevertheless, I also recognise that it may offer incremental improvement on current systems of education, especially if it leads to greater support for innovative, creative and community learning. Transparency notwithstanding, I do worry that a society permeated by mass surveillance and quantified virtue is less beautiful and less free. I am attracted to virtue ethics but am concerned that equality has very little place in virtue-based ethical systems. What concerns me most of all is that badge-based learning is not falsifiable. Once we accept a quantitative approach to learning, we lose our ability to judge whether a badge-based approach is actually worthwhile. So long as the system is technically achievable, all problems can be explained as a need to tune the system. Nevertheless, since so many major American institutions seem committed to this model, we have a responsibility to ensure that the resulting system does respect privacy and lead to the best possible outcomes for learners of all styles and ages.