Micro-credentials: In search of the best implementation model

Micro-credentials (MCs) are regarded as one of the most significant developments in global higher education in the post-pandemic era. Unlike traditional academic qualifications earned over a longer period of time, MCs are based on outcomes acquired through a short, transparently assessed course or module over a few weeks.

One of the benefits of MCs is that they provide a flexible approach to developing career paths and upskilling in the jobs market, thus enhancing learners’ employability.

In response to this emerging trend, Asian governments have encouraged universities to provide a variety of MCs to existing students and workers. Yet, several issues are challenging the implementation of MCs in the region, such as the lack of a clearly shared definition; the limited credibility of some MC providers; and the lack of incorporation of MCs into national quality assurance systems.

Given that MCs can be offered by different providers in different ways, ensuring consistent quality is complicated.

Qualifications frameworks and quality assurance

National qualifications frameworks and quality assurance processes are regarded as essential academic infrastructure to facilitate the definition and achievement of MC learning outcomes at the systemic, institutional and faculty levels.

The UNESCO Global Convention recommends that qualifications acquired through recognised non-traditional learning modes which are subject to comparable quality assurance mechanisms will be assessed according to the rules and regulations of the state party, or of the constituent unit thereof, using the same criteria as those applied to similar qualifications acquired through traditional ways of learning.

Without recognition, they cannot be integrated into national and international learning ecosystems.

Four Asian contexts

• Malaysia: A convergence model: The Malaysian government promotes MCs to strengthen the capacities of Malaysian citizens and build a lifelong learning society. The 2017 Malaysia Qualifications Framework (MQF) second edition prescribes that the accumulation of credits and learning outcomes is possible through short courses, micro-learning and micro-credentials. In this way, MCs have been incorporated into a national qualification system in the Malaysian context.

The Guidelines to Good Practices: Micro-credentials were published in 2020 by the Malaysian Qualifications Agency and state that all MC providers should establish internal quality assurance (QA) systems to ensure all aspects of design, development, delivery, assessment, monitoring, review and improvement of MCs.

So we see that a convergence model between a qualifications framework and QA has been applied in Malaysia, which aims to motivate universities to offer MCs as either standalone courses or components of accredited programmes.

• New Zealand: A partial convergence model: New Zealand became the first country in the region to incorporate MCs into its national educational system. The aim of MCs is to enhance learners’ competencies and their employability. Working learners are the primary users.

In 2018, the New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) developed a Register of New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA)-approved MCs. Currently, only MCs in non-university tertiary sectors have been recognised and incorporated into the national qualifications framework under the training scheme rules.

In contrast to Malaysia, therefore, New Zealand has adopted a partial convergence QA model, in which only non-university sectors have been incorporated into the New Zealand Qualifications and Credentials Framework (NZQCF) and the Electronic Qualifications Authority of the NZQA, resulting in MCs being of limited value to academic sectors.

• Hong Kong: A divergence model: As in New Zealand, working learners are the targets of Hong Kong’s approach to MCs and MC qualifications can be recognised.

In order to facilitate the recognition of MCs, the Hong Kong Council for Accreditation of Academic and Vocational Qualifications (HKCAAVQ) has proposed eight principles for credit accumulation and transfer, including promoting learner mobility across sectors, levels and types of qualifications, achieving learning outcomes, recognising prior non-formal and informal learning and ensuring rigorous quality assurance measures.

Currently, self-accrediting public universities are required to develop internal quality assurance for MCs; by contrast, self-financing institutions’ MCs are mainly assessed by industry and HKCAAVQ reviews those industries indirectly. HKCAAVQ is still developing QA approaches for self-financing institutions.

• Taiwan: A disruptive QA model: In Taiwan, MCs are strongly associated with interdisciplinary studies and self-directed learning. MCs are mainly aimed at existing students in Taiwan’s universities. MCs are considered as partial graduation credits that contribute to a full qualification awarded under the purview of individual institutions.

Given that the Higher Education Evaluation and Accreditation Council of Taiwan (HEEACT), the national accreditor, is not commissioned by the Ministry of Education to carry out quality assurance with regard to MCs provided by universities, internal QA at individual institutions is important for ensuring the quality of micro-credential courses and programmes.

Without a national qualifications framework and specific external QA, this disruptive QA model will likely result in MCs gaining limited societal recognition and value in Taiwanese society.

A flexible approach

The importance of MCs can be seen in their transparency, recognition, stackability and portability. National quality frameworks and quality assurance should serve as essential academic infrastructure for safeguarding the quality and relevance of flexible learning pathways while mitigating the risks associated with learning fragmentation.

In the post-pandemic era, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ QA approach should give way to ‘fit-for-purpose’ solutions, and we must gradually move towards a fitness for flexibility approach in response to the need for diversification, relevance and inclusiveness in higher education.

Given that MCs have been regarded as a gateway to lifelong learning in Asia, it is imperative that we build a convergence model when it comes to both qualifications frameworks and quality assurance that can support different types of learners’ professional and personal development as well as qualifications recognition.

Angela Yung Chi Hou is a professor at the College of Education at National Chengchi University in Taiwan. She is also editor-in-chief of Higher Education Evaluation & Development, a member of QS Global Rankings Advisory Board, UK, a member of the Transnational Education (TNE) Quality Benchmark of the Advisory Board at UK Ecctis and she won the Outstanding Research Award (2023) from the National Science and Technology Council, Taiwan. E-mail: yungchi@nccu.edu.tw. This commentary is based on her recent article in Studies in Higher Education.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.