Whether for learning or employment purposes, decision-makers and policymakers must address the question of trust in the value micro-credentials hold for recognition (even when offered within a formal learning context). Trust in the value of a micro-credential is difficult as while, e.g., any individual and especially those facilitating recognition may “understand that a master’s degree signifies a higher level of preparation than a bachelor’s degree, it is impossible to say whether a Udacity Nanodegree prepares a person more or better than an edX Professional Certificate or a Coursera Specialization” (Pickard, 2018).
One crucial way to build trust in micro-credentials is for decision-makers and policymakers to structurally consult with all stakeholders the development of enabling frameworks, regulations or legislation to integrate micro-credentials into existing learning and employment (human resources) systems. These may include:
- A fit for purpose country or system level policy initiative to establish a commonly agreed definition of micro-credentials, standard elements for describing a micro-credential, and principles for designing, issuing and recognising micro-credentials using, where applicable, the recommendations outlined in this guide.
- A country or system level policy initiative to integrate micro-credentials in the National Qualifications Framework, where relevant, and stakeholder-wide consultation on the development of one where none is in place.
- A fit for purpose country or system level policy initiative for enabling the recognition of prior learning, including by enabling individuals the right to request the validation and/or credit-rating of previously acquired formal, non-formal or informal learning for the purposes of recognition to access employment or E&T.
In regard to the first policy initiative, an example of an enabling framework for micro-credentials beyond that of the European Union is the 'Australian National Microcredentials Framework' (NMF). Among others, the framework sets a national definition for micro-credentials, agrees on unifying principles for micro-credential and establishes critical information and minimum standard requirements.
Similar aspects to the EU Council Recommendation include the requirement of assessment, stated learning outcomes, workload, level and use of standards of quality assurance. Where no QA standards are applied, a statement of quality is required. Additionally, the Australian NMF includes requirements for harmonizing the design of micro-credentials with skill descriptors and industry specifications where the credential is recognised.
In regard to the second policy initiative, see Integrate Micro-Credentials into National Qualifications Frameworks for specific country examples where micro-credentials were integrated into national qualifications frameworks. As demonstrated in Recognition of micro-credentials, where qualification frameworks are in place, the recognition of micro-credentials is facilitated when verifiers can assess an applicant’s micro-credentials to existing competency frameworks such as, but not only limited to NQFs. However, most education and training systems have not yet integrated micro-credentials into them (Nuffic, 2019)
Finally, in regard to the third policy initiative, aside from policies to enable the validation and certification of prior learning in the form of a micro-credential (see country examples mentioned in Validation of Non-Formal and Informal Learning (VNFIL), policy initiatives may also enable RPL procedures to facilitate recognition of micro-credentials, including through credit recognition, where an evaluator assesses the learner's record of learning for awarding credit toward a qualification or programme, or by enabling credit rating. E.g. the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) is enhancing the training offered by companies and professional organisations by formally placing it on the Scottish Credit and Qualifications Framework (SCQF), Scotland’s national framework for qualifications. Providers of such training can then issue awards to their employees’ undertaking this training and these rewards reflect the SCQF level, that in turn reflects the level of difficulty and SCQF credits which indicate the length of time taken to complete the training (SQA, n.d.). In South Korea, the Academic Credit Bank System (ACBS) is a central agency which, rather than issuing the credits itself, formally evaluates applications from non-formal education institutions to become ACBS- accredited institutions. This accreditation would enable non-formal education providers to award their learners credit which can be accumulated to a degree (ACBS, n.d.).
Please log in or sign up to comment.