BloomBoard micro-credentials are designed for participants to demonstrate their competency through a portfolio of evidence. It is outlined in the BloomBoard Policy & Guidelines for Working Together on a Micro-credential that every portfolio of evidence must be unique and demonstrate the individual competency of the submitting participant.
There will be exceptions to this policy when a “shared team artifact” has been approved by BloomBoard. These exceptions will be by artifact and will be clearly communicated in the micro-credential.
Micro-credential Directions Example for Use of a Shared Team Artifact
When certifying and calibrating, BloomBoard follows Cohen’s Kappa Statistic, where an assessor is considered calibrated and in “near perfect agreement” when achieving an 80% agreement to a true score.
Portfolios of evidence, once submitted through the BloomBoard platform, are given an ID number to provide platform participants anonymity and the assessment process objectivity. As a result, assessors will not know the participant, the district, or of any relationship between the submitted portfolio and a peer’s portfolio. In addition, a team of assessors and approvers are assigned to a micro-credential title. Therefore, it is possible a shared team artifact may not be assessed exactly the same across multiple submissions. See “Assessment of Shared Team Artifacts” below for directions on how to follow up when there is a discrepancy in the assessment of your shared team artifact.
See here if you are interested in learning more about micro-credential assessment.
Assessment of Shared Team Artifacts
If you and a peer have submitted the same “shared team artifact” and the assessment of that artifact does not align to the assessment of your peer’s, please contact email@example.com. Include the micro-credential title, the artifact description, the issue, and your peer’s name. BloomBoard Support will follow up with the Assessment Team who will analyze and problem solve.