The target audience is primarily educators, this is where it all began.
As a teacher, I need to talk with other Blender educators about my classes to organize collaboration, and it just makes perfect sense to have a shared language to discuss approaches to teaching Blender.
On the other hand, for students, it can be a way to self-assess, to discover in a more or less structured way what lies ahead on their journey through Blender.
The Education Badges were originally developed for this purpose. Itâs not intended as a grading system, though I guess no one would mind if someone wanted to use it that way.
What do you think would be a sensible approach? Or do you have a different use case in mind?
Oh so when I make a course I can say âthis course results in Modeling 1-5, Shading 1-3, Anim 1-3â and etc? And communicate to other educators about what my students have learnt? If thatâs true it makes better sense and I can see usefulness in that. I think original post assumed that people were already familiar with past conversations and more basic explanation like that was missed.
Another question is then how do we qualify teachers to use them? Do we just trust educators that their course indeed includes those badges, or is there some qualification required?
I think itâs important to highlight what the purpose of these badges is indeed, I also misunderstood.
For me it also seemed more like some certification awarded to students, and I was wondering about the verification too. If thatâs not what it is, it should be made very clear, so teachers will not start using them that way, leading to students putting them on their CV (real or not) as if it meant much more than it does.
As @edesimon already described, for educators/teachers the reference framework and badges are a common ground for talking about Blender education. This is not meant to discourage anyone with different ideas, but to encourage to find ways to align these different goals and visions.
For students it can provide insight into what their growth path could possibly look like.
Teachers/educators can decide to give these badges to their students, thatâs really up to the teacher to do so.
For example, in the case of student exchange programs itâs handy if students and schools have a common language and thus the student can provide earned badges.
At my school, students receive a badge report. So I will give my students these badges. Thatâs how things are organized at my school.
Professional badges can be seen as a follow up on the foundation badges and will go in âmore depthâ on a subject. This has still to be developed.
Badges are not a grading system, badges are used to show/communicate that a skill has been learned. More can be found here: Why Open Badges? | Mozilla Support.
As the post describes, itâs about common understanding. Some schools/teachers talk about Modeling absolute beginner, but each of them teach something different/have a different opinion about what an absolute beginner course should cover. Now a teacher can still say Modeling absolute beginner, but can refer to the reference framework/badges to make clear what is covered, for example Modeling 1 -3. Another teacher can say Iâm covering Modeling 1-5 and so on.
Itâs not the intention to qualify teachers or educators. We do like to have (video) tutorials for the badges.
The reference framework is meant as common understanding for teachers and students.
With badges students can communicate about the skills learned. Teachers can give these badges to their students, but itâs really up to the teacher/school.
Obviously, the wording has caused confusion. Thanks for pointing this out. I think we should discuss with the education community how we can make this clearer.
Originally, you might think that way. But I hope the outcome of the badges will match your expectation. Gatekeepers, exclusive group dynamics or rigid pecking orders would be a big turn-off.
There is a brilliant description (by Feynman) of what I am afraid of.
Are the badges set up as prerequisites for each other, i.e. Modelling is the first, and Animation depends on things learned in Modelling - so that in order to learn Lighting you would first need concepts from Sculpting, RIgging etc?
Or are they intended to be an âany-order-you-wantâ experience?
I know the modules themselves have levels within them (Modelling 1-5), but I wasnât sure how they related to one another.
If they are independent modules then it might make sense to add a âLevel 0â badge for things like user interface and concepts like modal workflow or node graphs, as they would otherwise have to be covered in multiple modules.
I appreciate how challenging designing a curriculum for a software as diverse and evolving as Blender could be, but itâs looking great so far!
Hi, the badges are meant to be sequential in term of topic depth and information complexity. For example if the learner has no exposure to rigging and tries to do level 2 skipping level 1 he/she might struggle missing key notions explained in the first badge.
However, the badge topics (modeling, animation, etc) are not in a structure where one is required to take another.
And regarding âsharedâ topics like UI we took the approach to have it infused in each badge as needed, rather than having a UI/common workflows badge, but itâs a good point to think further. Thanks!
Thank you for the clarification, and again, I do understand that the intention was to progress through each module (i.e. Modelling 1 will introduce concepts required for Modelling 5).
Maybe a better term (than UI) would be Global application settings, e.g.: there are modules where the prerequisite is a Blender scene, or character, but I didnât see anything about importing objects, and there are certain shortcuts work in almost every editor.
You have answered my question, but I feel like there are still contradictory elements here:
badge topics (modeling, animation, etc) are not in a structure where one is required to take another.
vs
regarding âsharedâ topics like UI we took the approach to have it infused in each badge as needed
The current order looks like it would work pretty well as a required order, introducing things slowly, with topics like Rigging coming after Modelling and Animation, but it sounds like it wasnât designed that way.
I donât know that there is a perfect solution, given how many different ways people use Blender (Physics, Grease Pencil, Geometry Nodes etc), but it felt like it was worth bringing up at this stage.
It seems like the options are:
provide redundant information across modules, so that someone who starts with Lighting still gets all the UX info they would need from Modelling
donât duplicate UI/UX info, leaving a link in Lighting to âSee Modelling 1 for how to use the Add Menuâ
or create a linear system where each module builds and expands upon concepts and workflows introduced in the previous
A student shouldnât be starting with lighting. And, nothing in Modeling should depend on learning anything about lighting, until an advanced skill level has been reached and lighting becomes relevant to those advanced situations.
I know youâre creating an example for illustration, but nonetheless - âcreate a linear system where each module builds and expands upon concepts and workflows introduced in the previousâ is basically the proper sequence of learning.
I know youâre creating an example for illustration, but nonetheless - âcreate a linear system where each module builds and expands upon concepts and workflows introduced in the previousâ is basically the proper sequence of learning.
It may be, but it is explicitly not the approach being taken with this project:
badge topics (modeling, animation, etc) are not in a structure where one is required to take another.
And that was more what I thought was worth discussing - one badge does not currently require another to complete, so you could start with Lighting (though I agree, youâre not likely to need to know lighting before you can navigate the viewport, etc).
