Quality Assurance

Source: Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability

This chapter recommends the integration of fit for purpose internal and external quality assurance processes to providers’ micro-credentialing practices. Quality assurance processes apply to the delivery of courses leading to micro-credentials (where applicable), assessment and certification.

At the heart of quality assurance processes is the requirement to collect feedback from actors on the micro-credential demand side, such as learners and employers. This can enhance the quality (and reputation) of a provider by enhancing, among others, the quality (and reputation) of the micro-credentials it issues. In essence, quality assurance is relevant to ensure that learners pursuing a micro-credential can avail themselves of high-quality learning opportunities which can also be recognised for education and training or employment purposes.

Implement External Quality Assurance of Micro-Credential Providers

While quality assurance (QA) approaches may differ per country, the EU Council Recommendation indicates that, as a minimum, “external QA is based primarily on the assessment of providers (rather than individual courses) and the effectiveness of their internal QA procedures.”

A provider may choose (or be required) to become externally quality assured via several pathways including:

• Accreditation or licencing procedures, whereby an external quality assurance procedure must be undergone as part of a regulatory requirement, for a micro-credential to be allowed to be offered within a jurisdiction.
• Professional and Employer certifications – business membership organisations, business membership organisations, groups of employers or large employers will create lists of ‘approved’ providers or courses for professional development.
• External Quality Assurance certification schemes by standardisation bodies such as ISO 21001 – Educational Organisation Management Systems or ISO 17024 – Conformity assessment – General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons or ISO 17024 – General requirements for bodies operating certification of persons.
• Platform certification schemes – whereby a massive open online course (MOOC) platform (or other online platform) conducts its own quality assessment of courses before allowing them to be offered via the platform.

A comprehensive external quality approach combines self-assessment, external review and processes for improvement. Standards which external QA reviews should consider, based on the EQF EU Council Recommendation (2017), include: 

• the design of micro-credentials and application of the learning outcomes approach.
• the process of certification and whether learner assessment is valid and reliable, according to agreed and transparent learning outcomes-based standards.
• quality assurance processes (for e.g. internal quality assurance) consist of feedback mechanisms and procedures for continuous improvement of micro-credentials and are based on clear and measurable objectives, standards and guidelines.
• involvement of all relevant stakeholders at all stages of assuring and improving quality of micro-credentials.
• the regularity of evaluations associating self-assessment and external review.
• whether QA is integral to internal management and supported by the appropriate resources.
• the electronic accessibility of evaluation results.  

The essential principle is that micro-credential providers’ internal QA system needs to be evaluated externally, ideally by an entity independent from the organisation running the QA system.

Implement Internal Quality Assurance of Micro-Credentials

A risk-based approach to quality assurance of micro-credentials recognizes that the stakes and potential consequences of participating in a smaller, more focused learning experience are different from those associated with a full 3-year university program. As such, the quality assurance methods for micro-credentials should be tailored to the unique characteristics and risks associated with these smaller credentials.

Micro-credentials require significantly less time to complete than a full 3-year university program. Consequently, the opportunity cost and potential lost time for a student participating in a micro-credential are lower. Similarly, since they are less expensive (for individuals or governments) than traditional degree programs, the financial risk is also lower. Micro-credentials are also often pursued alongside other educational or professional commitments, minimizing disruptions to a student's life and reducing the risk of having to leave a job or relocate.

Given these factors, quality assurance methods for micro-credentials should be adapted to reflect the lower risk profile and unique characteristics of these programs. Quality assurance methods may emphasize the direct relevance and applicability of the program to the specific skills or competencies being targeted. This might include a more targeted assessment of course content, instructional methods, and learning outcomes. As micro-credentials often cater to specific industry needs, quality assurance should prioritize ensuring that these programs align with current industry standards and practices.

On the other hand, practices such as using large multi-disciplinary programme committees to evaluate quality, doing extensive and lengthy consultations for years before launching a programme or running internal programme level reviews by evaluation teams may not be necessary given the specificities of micro-credentials. A risk-based approach to quality assurance for micro-credentials acknowledges the unique characteristics and lower risk profile of these programs compared to traditional degree programs. Adapting quality assurance methods to account for these differences can help ensure that micro-credentials remain relevant, effective, and responsive to the needs of both learners and industry stakeholders.

According to the EU Council Recommendation (2022), providers should ensure that their internal QA procedures review: 

• The overall quality of the micro-credential itself, based on the quality standards referred to in the chapter above, including Annexe IV of the EQF, the European Standards and Guidelines for Higher Education, and the European Quality Assurance Framework for VET.
• The quality of the course, where applicable, leading to the micro-credential.
• Learners’ feedback on the learning experience leading to the micro-credential.
• Peers’ feedback, including other providers and stakeholders, on the learning experience leading to the micro-credential.

When gathering learners’ feedback on the learning experience, providers should enable learners to be involved as equal partners in the internal QA process (see also Learner-Centred Micro-Credentials). Taking the responsibility to co-own the improvement of the learning experience is essential for learners to develop collaborative skills and competencies which are necessary both in the labour market and society in general.

Beyond giving feedback only through surveys, learners may take on more meaningful roles when they participate in internal governing and quality assurance structures (Klemenčič, 2018). Their involvement e.g. in designing, communicating, administering and improving quality improvement processes further legitimises the quality claims made by the micro-credential provider. The meaningful and non-tokenistic participation of learners in such structures should be actively endorsed from the view that learners are not only there to listen and succeed in their assessments, but that they are key players to improving micro-credentials.

A commonly used model for the evaluation of learning is the Kirkpatrick model. Developed in the 1950s it is still valid today and applies completely to micro-credentials. The model suggests implementing evaluation at four levels, summarised in Table 3.

Table 3: Kirkpatrick model of evaluating training.

Source: Content adapted from Kirkpatrick, James D., and Wendy Kayser Kirkpatrick. Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation. Association for Talent Development, 2016.

Another benefit of learner involvement in internal governance and quality assurance structures is that when learners are representative of the learner body (e.g. they are elected by learners to participate in such structures), the quality processes become thus more inclusive and accessible to all learners as representatives would be accountable to advocate in the best interests of learners and to report back on the results of their involvement. By facilitating the ability of learners to participate in quality assurance processes accountably, micro-credential providers are enabling a completed feedback loop where the results of learners’ feedback can be acted and followed-up on by their representatives (Klemenčič, 2018).

Publish Quality Data

Given that there are thousands of micro-credential providers globally, offering tens of thousands of micro-credentials, and that nearly all of these are easily accessible to learners via online platforms, it becomes nearly impossible for a verifier to recognise these micro-credentials on the basis of reputation alone. Thus, publication of information associated with the quality of a micro-credential becomes essential to build trust for the recognition of micro-credentials. Quality-related information includes but may not only be limited to information on providers' QA procedures, evaluation results, reputational indicators, procedures for staff evaluations along with learners’ ratings and feedback on the micro-credentials.

Publishing quality data requires a provider to use multiple interlocking techniques:

• Publication of their quality assurance policy on their website.
• Including a summary of quality procedures applied to the course and assessment in the micro-credential certificate awarded to a student.
• Publishing the results of external quality assurance (endorsement) on their website, together with the results of those evaluations in full.
• Publishing the results of student and stakeholder evaluations on the websites.
• Ensuring that online course catalogues that rate or review courses include the micro-credential in their rankings, assessment and/or ratings.