Darren
While your concept is sound, the practicalities of
developing such a program, delivering it and then maintaining the standards is
a BIG ASK. I can speak from two areas,
one as a MCSE, (and I am working on my Linux skill formalisation), and the other
in that I have recently written a Recognition of Current Competency (RCC)
Program for an Australian Quality Training Framework Advanced Diploma for a
University.
The RCC program was a two year $200K plus project, and that
did not even look at skills gap training. As the first validation candidate for
the award, the level of co-ordination of accrediting body including external
auditors was the biggest hurdle to be overcome. You also need to ask what external qualifications and what
pre-requisites will be recognised. How
will all this be measured? Who will be
the final authority? Will it be a
panel? Will it be left to Martin? Who will be the Auditors of the
program? And finally is it worth the expense?
For a base certification of Moodle in the 4 areas you
consider I suspect the development costs (based on my experience) would
approach approx US$1million, if the program was to have any credibility. I believe that level of investment would be
better directed to further development of Moodle at this stage.
I will take up one on one of your heading of Content
Provider. As an Australian Flexible
Learning Leader (2001) how do you measure the standards of Content
Development I believe we place too much emphasis on content development and
too little on training delivery. It is
my belief after 5 years of research that unless you have a definitive needs for
re-usable data (Military ore about the only people who have the need for vast
amounts of reusable material due to their numbers) that we are better off with
quick and dirty techniques for delivering content. In the 5 years I have been
delivering, the core information has a lifecycle of between 6-12 months. Much of todays education falls into the same
category, for no other reason than we are moving forward at a rapid pace. Look at the many books that are produced
today. How many can be really termed
reference books that are re-used over and over again by individuals. Look at the high cost of book purchases
student make each year in all levels of education, only to see them thrown away
and never used again.
I personally believe that selective sections of review are
more practical and then use the like of Moodle to draw synchronous and
asynchronous discussions, engage students. Oh hell say lecturers and teachers, that means more work for us. If done correctly it is really less work
as the students eventually undertake the learning only guided occasionally by
a good facilitator. On-line is a whole
different ball game to Face to Face, yet I know in Australia, many think that
if you can teach (jug to mug as I refer it to) in front of a class room, toy
can teach on-line.
This may also be an area that could be explored in Dons
Learning Design program.
This is only the very tip of the iceberg in tis area. What
are your thoughts?
) with perhaps payment for the course and / or payment for certification. Courses could cover a variety of moodle users depending upon need. An initial list could include certification for:
? 
, for those who are adept at whipping loads of students through online Moodle mazes