Roger writes, > I think the micro-credential notion is just about the silliest idea > I've heard in 55 years of involvement with post-secondary ed.
Now, no longer being involved in higher education, one can understand reticence from those of us that still are. However one can also well understand, and welcome, the apparently real-world points that David Braue notes in his contribution to the Australian Computer Society “Education Age” (and whom have developed microcredentials extensively) when he writes the item entitled, “Microcredentials standardised at last .. The quickest way to upskill, do they pose a threat to universities?” https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2022/microcredentials-standardised-at-last.html (Quote) “Australia’s “massively fragmented and tough” credentialing innovation sector has long kept it lagging behind regional innovators like Singapore, Malaysia and the EU, warned Dr Katy McDevitt, a former Deakin University microcredential designer who is now chief learning officer at multinational microcredentials provider HEX – which has affiliations with 37 universities and has worked with over 5,000 students. The NMF “is a major practical contribution towards making it simpler for education providers to get traction in designing meaningful credentials,” McDevitt said, warning that “tech-powered transformations are happening at a phenomenal pace.” “The longer we spend defining the basics of a form of education technology that has now existed for the best part of a decade, the more out of step we become with the real and fast emerging future needs of the economy.” Momentum for microcredentials has been building in recent years as increasing demand for current IT and other skills challenges universities that require years of commitment to complete broad degrees whose specific deliverables are often hard for employers to evaluate. In 2019, a review of the AQF warned that existing “highly generic” credentials were unsuitable for the modern workforce and relied on outcome statements that were “not meaningful” in a world characterised by “a constant state of disruption and innovation.” Aiming to help workers better understand the skills they need to get IT jobs, organisations such as the Australian Computer Society (ACS) and OpenLearning have worked to establish standards for microcredentials – but the NMF aims to simplify the landscape by mapping these and other courses against common definitions. Standardising the currently disjointed market for microcredentials – and ensuring that certifications are universally recognised – could threaten the tertiary sector’s long-held control over formal knowledge acquisition, former educational director and consultant Paul Corcoran argued in a recent evaluation of the sector’s biggest challenges. “Current discussions around microcredentials sometimes have the feel of an answer in search of a question,” he said, noting that “the virtues of microcredentials are being extolled, but take-up is fragmented and stakeholders appear to have mixed views on the utility and quality of those credentials.” Microcredentials allow job seekers to demonstrate more specific skills than is possible using ‘macrocredentials’ such as university degrees, Corcoran notes in advocating for a standardised national framework – as well as allowing individuals to have their skills “recognised in a more timely manner than is possible with macrocredentials”. (End quote) Personally, I would love quality/approved microcredential courses in welding, sail-boat design and knitting 😊 Anyway, here is what the government write regarding their framework initiative. (Nb points 6, 7 &8) https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-publications/resources/national-microcredentials-framework (Quote) Executive Summary: The education landscape is changing with growing demand for shorter-form courses that enable workers to rapidly upskill and encourage lifelong learning. Technological change coupled with rapid transformation brought about by COVID-19, have elevated the potential for microcredentials to rapidly upskill and reskill the workforce. Even so, the microcredentials ecosystem is disparate, lacking even a consistent definition across higher education, vocational education, and industry. A significant number of Federal and State Government projects are now underway to fund, trial, collate and credentialise microcredentials. These projects define and fund microcredentials differently, and without a clear framework, they risk embedding inconsistency into the future. Simultaneously, many providers have developed their own credit recognition or microcredential policies. Multiple reports have recommended the establishment of guidelines that microcredentials should follow, including the Australian Qualifications Framework Review 2019. A framework can help reduce complications for learners seeking to make a decision on what to learn, for recognising bodies or providers seeking to recognise a microcredential for credit, and for employers or professional bodies seeking to understand the learning outcomes and capabilities of employees. While a framework is unlikely to address all questions raised by interested parties, a National Microcredentials Framework can bring additional coherence to this ecosystem. It has been the product of broad consultation with over 120 individuals from approximately 70 organisations, an environment scan that included consideration of over 35 different definitions and multiple existing frameworks, and consensus-based discussion among a Microcredentials Working Group with recognised leaders from higher education, vocational education, and industry. The nature of this discussion is representative of the diversity of views on microcredentials. Consensus on key elements has been challenging, and the strong weight of opinion has been that any framework should err on the side of minimalism to protect the flexibility and dynamism of microcredentials. Announced in June 2020 by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, the Microcredentials Marketplace will be a user-friendly, nationally-consistent platform that allows learners, employers and providers to compare short courses. Definition The framework defines microcredentials as a certification of assessed learning or competency, with a minimum volume of learning of one hour and less than an AQF award qualification, that is additional, alternate, complementary to or a component part of an AQF award qualification. Unifying principles This definition is supported by a number of unifying principles; that microcredentials should be: • Outcome-based. • Responsive to industry-need. • Tailored to support lifelong learning. • Transparent and accessible. Critical information requirements and minimum standards A number of critical information requirements are stipulated to encourage greater consistency and portability of all microcredentials. These requirements provide users with critical information about microcredentials, enabling them to be better understood as a unit of exchange. They are supported by a series of minimum standards for microcredentials that are anticipated to sit on the Marketplace. 1. Learning outcomes must be clearly stated. 2. When describing foundation or general capabilities, providers will consider the descriptors contained within the Australian Core Skills Framework. Note that additional capability taxonomies will be considered in a future version of this framework. 3. Microcredentials require assessment/s. This assessment/s must assess the attainment of learning outcomes. For transparency reasons, the type of assessment/ assessment method must be clearly stated. 4. Microcredentials are required to stipulate volume of learning and to have a minimum of one hour volume of learning and less than that of an AQF award qualification. 5. Microcredentials will consider signifying the mastery achieved by a microcredential, where the primary purpose of a microcredential is not credit-bearing. This can be a best-fit or estimate. 6. Where applicable, microcredentials will clearly stipulate industry-recognition, where the microcredential is recognised by a professional body, satisfies or aligns to an industry standard or professional development requirement, or constitutes recognition towards an industry or vendor certification. 7. Where applicable, microcredentials will clearly stipulate credit-recognition, where the microcredential is recognised by an education institution for the provision of specified or unspecified credit or advanced standing. This stipulation will outline the nature of the credit and the AQF level/s of the qualifications that the microcredential leads to (rather than mapping to the AQF level outcomes). Where the microcredential isrecognised for credit only when “stacked” with other microcredentials, thisshould be clearly stipulated. 8. Where an issuing authority has not applied a regulated standard (i.e. the standards and academic integrity processes applied to award courses or components within a training package) to a microcredential, they must provide a statement of assurance of quality - e.g. a profile of the provider/ institution, a description of the quality assurance processes undertaken, and the process for review/ updating the microcredential. It is hoped that the development and implementation of this framework in conjunction with the Marketplace will encourage greater cohesion in the design, development and delivery of microcredentials across both the Australian education system and broader industry. (End quote) Cheers, Stephen _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
