Transparency

Publishing information on the micro-credentials' design and quality using standards for transparency as recommended in this chapter can facilitate a fair and quick process of recognising the micro-credential for education, training or employment purposes. Recognition is a three-way transaction involving an issuing organisation, the learner and a recognising organisation (such as an employer or E&T organisation). Ensuring transparency of the micro-credential is essential to enable the trust that allows such a transaction to take place.

The EU recommends that “Micro-credentials are measurable, comparable and understandable, with clear information on learning outcomes, workload, content, level, and the learning offer, as relevant” (Council of the EU, 2022).

Describe Micro-Credentials in a Standardised Format

Annex I of the EU Council Recommendation (2022) suggests a list of mandatory and optional elements which should be used to describe micro-credentials. These are listed in Table 4.

Table 4: Mandatory and Optional Elements to describe a micro-credential.

Source: Council of the EU (2022).

Adopting such a standard enhances the comparability of micro-credentials. Additionally, by reducing the complexity which arises from needing to deal with micro-credentials in tens or even hundreds of different formats, it significantly simplifies the ability of all parties to recognise said micro-credentials.

Publish Learning Outcomes, Notional Workload and Credit/s

Learning outcomes are the learning goals defined from the learner’s perspective (what the learner knows, understands and is able to do after the completion of the learning process) and not the teacher’s or mentor’s perspective (teaching subjects). This distinction is vital because the learning outcomes are not just statements. The proper implementation of learning outcomes implies that teaching and learning methods should be meaningfully chosen for the learner to develop the agreed learning outcomes. Similarly, the assessment of learners’ achievements should adequately evaluate whether a learner has developed an agreed learning outcome and not some other outcomes (Kennedy, 2007).

Workload is the estimated time invested by learners to achieve the stated learning outcomes. Workload can be reported a simple function of time, e.g. in hours, or using a compound indicator such as credits embedded within credit systems.

Examples of the expression of workload in credits include The European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS) and the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET). The ECTS Users’ Guide defines ECTS credits as “the volume of learning based on the defined learning outcomes and their associated workload”. For illustration, “60 ECTS credits are allocated to the learning outcomes and associated workload of a full-time academic year or its equivalent” and using this analogy “one credit corresponds to 25 to 30 hours of work” (European Commission, 2015). An application of the ECTS is demonstrated by the partners of the European MOOC Consortium and fellow micro-credential providers which abide to the Common Micro-Credential Framework (CMF). The implementing parties of the CMF are required to design and issue micro-credentials which award credit according to the ECTS (The European MOOC Consortium, 2018).

Other examples of credit systems include those of the UK, where different credit systems in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland in Further Education and Higher Education all use 10 notional learning hours as a basis for 1 credit (Pollard, et al. 2017). The same principle is applied in South Africa and New Zealand. In the United Sates, while the length of a semester may vary, the Carnegie definition is based upon a minimum length of 16 weeks. Thus, a unit of credit equates to three hours of student work per week (one hour lecture plus two hours of homework or three hours of lab) for 16 weeks, making one credit approximately equal to 48 notional hours (US Department of Education, n.d.).

Depending on the context, a micro-credential provider may choose to align with an existing credit system and/or develop a credit system that is unique to their institution and/or platform. In all cases, design principles for a credit system based on Annex V of the EU Council Recommendation on the European Qualifications Framework for Lifelong Learning (EQF) include:

1. Credit systems should support flexible learning pathways, for the benefit of individual learners.
2. When designing and developing [micro-credentials], the learning outcomes approach should be systematically used to facilitate the transfer of (components of) [micro-credentials] and progression in learning.
3. Credit systems should facilitate transfer of learning outcomes and progression of learners across institutional and national borders.
4. Credit systems should be underpinned by explicit and transparent quality assurance.
5. The Credit acquired by an individual should be documented, expressing the acquired learning outcomes, the name of the competent credit awarding institution and, where relevant, the related credit value.
6. Systems for credit transfer and accumulation should seek synergies with arrangements for validation of prior learning, working together to facilitate and promote transfer and progression.
7. Credit systems should be developed and improved through cooperation between stakeholders at the appropriate national and Union levels.

Where defining workload by means of a credit system is not feasible (such as when a micro-credential is provided outside of formal learning), the highest prioritisation should be given to ensuring transparency in the learning outcomes. This would facilitate micro-credentials to be integrated in national qualification frameworks (see Integrate Micro-Credentials into National Qualifications Frameworks), and to be recognised for learning or employment purposes (see Recognition).

Integrate Micro-Credentials into National Qualifications Frameworks

Learning outcomes of micro-credentials should be described with reference to the level descriptors of respective national or regional qualifications frameworks. Reference to qualification frameworks increases the understanding of the value of the micro-credential to actors on the demand side of the micro-credential ecosystem.

Two approaches exist to mapping micro-credentials to existing NQFs:

• A new micro-credential qualification type may be established under the NQF.
• A micro-credential may be outlined as a subunit of an existing qualification on the NQF.

Examples of four national systems where micro-credentials are mapped within their national qualification frameworks (although differently implemented) are presented from Ireland, New Zealand, Namibia and Georgia.

Ireland

Micro-credentials are incorporated at every level of the Irish National Framework of Qualifications as shown in Figure 2. They are represented in three different forms:

• “Minor Awards” (at any level, outcomes of partially completed “Major Awards” can be awarded).
• “Supplemental Awards” (from Level 4 onwards, learning in addition to “Major Awards” can be awarded).
• “Special Purpose Awards” (specific achievements can be awarded at any level).

Figure 2: The Irish NQF. Source: Quality and Qualifications Ireland (2021).

Micro-credentials are awarded by universities, institutes of technologies, other awarding bodies, the State Examinations Commission and Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI)[1].

New Zealand

The New Zealand Qualification Authority (NZQA) applies an integrated quality assurance approach to micro-credentials based on ongoing self-assessment, external validation and monitoring that is similar but not identical to the qualifications. Micro-credentials can be listed at any level (from 1 to 10) of the New Zealand Qualifications and Credentials Framework (NZQCF) as shown in Figure 3. They must have at least one credit (10 learning hours) and are typically more than 5 credits and less than 40 credits. They must clearly state the learning outcomes, demonstrate that they meet an industry or community need and include an assessment component. Vocational micro-credentials must include any relevant skills standards (ETF Policy Outlook on Micro-credentials. Survey (2022)).

Figure 3: The NZQCF. Source: ETF Policy Outlook on Micro-credentials. Survey (2022).

To award a micro-credential that is listed on the NZQCF, an education and training provider must be registered with NZQA and accredited to deliver that micro-credential. However, micro-credential is not a protected term and there are a range of 'micro-credentials' available that are not quality assured by NZQA and are not listed on the NZQCF. Outside of formal education and training settings, NZQA offers an 'Equivalency service' for micro-credentials. This establishes a credit value and level of complexity, but NZQA does not quality assure the provider nor the micro-credential (ETF Policy Outlook on Micro-credentials. Survey (2022).).

Namibia

Namibia's unit standards incorporate micro-credentials into its NQF depicted in Figure 4. They represent an award, signifying that a person has been formally assessed and attained a nationally agreed performance standard. Unit standards must comply with the NQF principles and any regulations made to awards placed on the Framework to become registered. They state, among others, the outcome(s) of learning and/or work activity, the proof, quality and context of performance a candidate must produce and/or demonstrate, references to quality assurance systems, and notional learning time. Units are periodically reviewed. They refer to Initial Vocational Education and Training, Continuing Vocational Education and Training and Adult Education (ETF Policy Outlook on Micro-credentials. Survey (2022)).

It is common practice in Namibia that when learners don’t complete a whole qualification they will gain recognition for the outcomes of learning and/or work activities they are able to perform. Similarly, the Namibia Training Authority recognises the individual’s prior learning by assessing it against one or more unit standards or components of a part-qualification or qualification.

Figure 4: The Namibian NQF. Source: Namibia Qualifications Authority (n.d.).

Georgia

Micro-credentials exist in Georgia as short-term vocational training and retraining programs for up- and re-skilling (ETF 2022). The programs lead to so-called Continuing Vocation Education and Training (CVET) qualifications. These programs are included in their National Qualifications Framework, between the 2 and 5 out of 8 levels of the Framework as seen in Figure 5. After the completion of the program, learners get a state recognised certificate. CVET qualifications can be stacked into larger credentials in pursuing the full VET qualification (ETF. Policy Outlook on Micro-credentials. Survey, 2022).

Figure 5: The Georgian NQF. Source ETF (2021).

Publish Skills and Competency Descriptors aligned to Micro-Credentials

Many recognition decisions can be essentially reduced to an evaluation of whether a person has the skills required for a certain task. Many micro-credentials only contain rudimentary data on skills obtained by their holder, which leads employers to find difficulty in understanding their value. 

Such data can be derived from international sectoral or competency frameworks, occupational and skills classification and/or occupational standards. An example of an international competency framework is the European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO). Among other features, ESCO works as a dictionary that describes, identifies and classifies occupations and skills relevant within European learning and labour market spheres. As of January 2023, it encompasses 13,890 skills mapped with occupations and international occupation classification standards.

The Common European Framework of Reference for languages provides proficiency levels for language acquisition in terms of understanding, speaking and writing. This framework organises language proficiency in six levels, A1 to C2, which can be regrouped into three broad levels: Basic User, Independent User and Proficient User, and that can be further subdivided according to the needs of the local context. The levels are defined through ‘can-do’ descriptors. 

The more links that can be made with skill and competence taxonomies the easier it becomes to understand the achievements that micro-credentials represent. They also aid users to find links between micro-credentials. These links may be important for combining or stacking micro-credentials to obtain a larger qualification or to obtain credit or exemptions. By stacking micro-credentials, learners are able to accumulate the necessary credits or workload to construct a learning pathway (see Learning Pathways).

Competency frameworks and qualification frameworks need to be used together – with competency frameworks being most useful at providing granular skill information, while qualification frameworks are useful in contextualising that skill acquisition within the overall levels of an educational or qualifications system.

[1] QQI is the state agency for the external quality assurance of further and higher education and training and training in Ireland. Besides, it is the national awarding body for further education and training and training and most private higher education and training providers. Among other activities, the QQI develops and maintains award standards in cooperation with the providers and stakeholders and supports the recognition of prior learning. Non-major awards can be used, in a flexible way, to achieve a major award.