Difference between revisions of "Training & Certification"
m (Add navbox and category)
|Line 1:||Line 1:|
Training & Certification
Training & Certification
Revision as of 06:07, 6 February 2010
Training & Certification
For the past 2 years, there have been efforts on the part of the community, supported by Linden Lab, to develop certification around Second Life skills. The original impetus came from Solution Providers looking for qualified contractors to hire. A second round of effort came from inworld instructors looking to be able to qualify their expertise and that of their students.
The process produced two outcomes - a list of building and scripting skills to be addressed including ordering of those skills, and definitions of those skills. The project is documented on the SLWiki: Certification.
This effort has reached a stage where the result is useful for developing both training and certification. A recent meeting with a subgroup of the Solution Provider Council provided feedback that confirmed two key points: while certification is still valuable for Solution Providers in the long run, a focus on training is equally important and more immediate.
From Linden Lab's perspective, certification is intended to be a voluntary way to demonstrate competency in Second Life skills. Certification complements portfolios and other demonstrations of product; you can't certify style, but you can demonstrate it. Certification would be by individual, not by organization. In the future, when certification is available, it would be shown in the Solution Provider Directory (number of certified staff members, perhaps) but not required for listing.
We're now at the stage where it's possible to use the skills lists as a framework to organize instruction, as well as defining skills for competency. At this point, I think it's important to separate the two efforts.
Next steps - Training
The skills list is public, so it is available to anyone who wants to use it as a framework for instruction. I am working with several external providers of training to get bids on what it would cost to set up and operate external training. By setting up an external training provider, but having the skills list public, we enable competition, but also create a market. Given no one has currently stepped into the breach, it's left Linden Lab to get this started. The initial emphasis is on scripting and building skills.
At the Solution Provider Council Certification Group meeting, it was suggested we seek potential training providers among organizations which are providing training in Second Life but have a real-world organization (mostly Universities - particularly through their Extension or Continuing Education divisions). If you have suggestions of organizations which have that competency, please let me know. There is clear advantage to having existing experts in Second Life engaged in both curriculum development and instruction.
I am hoping that we can find training providers who can start providing training in the first half of 2010, as it is a component of improving the quality of existing Solution Providers and necessary to recruit new Solution Providers.
Certification is more difficult and, as stated above, further away in the timeline. At this point, I'm posting this for discussion and input; it is not clear the best way to proceed on certification. There are two major steps necessary before developing certification, and there is a major issue to solve: can certification be done in Second Life? First, we need to select a model for certification; second, we need to develop the certification content. There are three models for certification:
- the diploma model (universities)
- the high-tech model (in-place 3rd party certification)
- the accreditation model (systems of colleges)
Let me describe each briefly.
The Diploma Model enables anyone who provides training to certify the results of their training. Quality of training (and hence, certification) would vary, and over time would be valued appropriately by the market. (The difference in workplace value between various Universities reflects the different market value of the diploma based on its perceived quality.)
Benefits: This model is easy to implement, since implementation is done by the training provider, there is no central certification or quality control, and the certificate cost is included in the cost of training.
Issues: However, it leads to wide variation in value, and can cause confusion and lack of value for certification.
Third-party Certification Model
The 3rd-party Certification Model, used for technical certification by Cisco, Microsoft and many other companies, requires a network of real world spaces where your identification is validated, you take a standardized test, and receive a certificate if you pass.
Benefits: The model is well understood, validates identity, and has clear providers. It offers a single standard for the certificate.
Issues: This model is expensive both to set up and for the person being certificated, requires that the content is clear and developed prior to creating certification, and provides limited availability (you have to go to a real world location). It's not clear how RL and SL identity would be coupled, since LL does not have unique individual identification for SL accounts that coincides with any RL identifier (passport number, for example).
The Accreditation Model is a hybrid model. Anyone can propose to offer certification, but they have to show to an independent board (the Accreditation Body) that they meet their standards. Anyone offering certification would be re-accredited on a regular basis (e.g., every 2 years) in order to continue to grant certificates. The Accreditation Body would develop the standards, the procedure for validating that certification meets their standards, the review process, and the procedure for granting accreditation. Most colleges are accredited by such a process (law schools, colleges of arts and letters, etc.).
Benefits: The accrediting body is responsible for developing procedures and content, and fees paid by those evaluated pay for the accreditation. Accreditation enables a wide variety of providers.
Issues:This model requires setting up an independent accrediting body. Its success depends on the perceived quality and impartiality of the accreditors, the perceived validity of its process, and the relative quality of accredited certification. The certifiers pay for certification. Following the college model, the accreditors would be made up of members of the certifiers. They might develop the criteria for certification (or it could be created prior to accreditation); they would be responsible for setting up the process for evaluation and accreditation, as well as actually accrediting the certifiers.
Providing training first has many advantages. Ironically, the lack of robust, comprehensive training raises the value of certification, since there's no other way to demonstrate you have gained competency. However, once training is in place, there will be identified resources to work with to put a certification process in place.
Many people have asked about certification grandfathering. The value of certification is that anyone can attempt certification, whether they've gone through a curriculum or not - so people who've gained their skills on their own are on equal footing for certification. At this time, Linden Lab does not contemplate requiring certification; it's voluntary and only valuable to the extent it has meaning to your customers.