Academic Accreditation

What is it?

Accreditation wears a number of faces. To a student, it is a job. To an institution, it is its validity. To an academic, it is protection. To an employer, it is a standard. To a government, it is control.

According to Wikipedia, it is the system by which “programs are evaluated by an external body to determine if applicable standards are met.”

At an official level, this means that paperwork and systems are in order. It means that someone wearing the quality assurance label puts together reams of paperwork that gets sent off to a number of members of an accreditation panel for scrutiny, often followed by a series of interviews with different stakeholders (usually faculty, students and administrators – although I have been involved in one where a manager from a service provider was involved) to ask about the quality of the programme.

But, is that what accreditation really is? Isn’t accreditation the right to confer an award? The official recognition that a student has accomplished the requirements of a programme? Doesn’t the power of accreditation, certification, and official recognition really lie with the academics who assess the work of the students? Isn’t that what it really comes down to?

I am empowered by my University to assess the work of students, and provide a grade that corresponds with a certain standard recognised by the institution.

Doesn’t it seem curious that my assessment is final within my institution, but meaningless outside it? Without the official stamp of approval of the institution, I am not recognised as competent for assessing the work of others.

I am still the same person. My judgment is still the same. I can provide the same level of support and feedback. I can write the same comments. I can provide the same (within the acceptable amount of variation tat exists in the system) grade for the work. But, outside of the institutional recognition structure, it is meaningless.

I have been reading about Mozilla’s Open Badge system, and one thing bothers me. It is still a recognition system that relies on the institution recognising the achievements. In the digital age we are a part of, with information abundance becoming ubiquitous, why do we need to have recognised assessments as the way to earn recognition? Why can’t we begin to recognise individuals and their individual expertise as the final authority in a badging system?

Here is my ideal system for providing recognition.

I went with my son to Subway the other day, and when he purchased his sandwich (actually, I bought it for him), he scanned his phone in front of some gadget that registered his loyalty points to his account somewhere so he can get a free sandwich someday. I thought it was pretty cool. I also wondered why we don’t recognise achievement that way?

Why can’t I have my expertise registered somewhere, and when I read or see something that I think is worth recognition, I can award a grade, or a star, or a badge. A badge that carries with it my credentials. Credentials that mean that in my area of expertise, I can award a gold star to something I think is really great, a silver star for something that is pretty good, a bronze star for something that’s alright, and a copper star for something that is ok.

I can award as many stars as I want to anything I see, but my credentials are what provide the worth of the star. If I award a gold star for a history essay (not something I am an expert in), the effect is on my credentials (I’m awarding points for something that I have no right evaluating at that level). I can give a copper star, which says I liked it, but doesn’t carry a great deal of weight for the badging. I can award copper stars for anything I like (a good plumbing job, a great performance by my favourite pop star etc.), but, in order to protect my credentials, I would only award bronze, silver or gold stars in the area that I have authority.

The receiver of stars could have a report generated by the central authority that records our stars, and have that sent to potential employers as a credential that demonstrates what they have achieved. The stars could be weighted by their level and by the credentials of the giver to output a report that provided a real reflection of what a person has done.

In addition, I might want to study in a new field. In order to obtain meaningful stars for my credentials, I would look into the field, and find those individuals who have the credentials that I want attached to my name. Anything that I produce for evaluation, I can submit to an individual for them to look at and award a star based on their expertise. As an expert, I would clearly indicate how much I charge for an evaluation, and how long it will be for the students to receive their recognition. If the student wants feedback on how they can improve on their work, I can provide that as well – for an additional fee.

That is essentially what I do now, only without the individualised service. In this digital age, do we need the intermediaries that we have which don’t really recognise our (or our students’) individuality? Can’t we do this on our own?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s