Roger writes,
> So how does the 'micro-credential' world address the need for > 'foundations', 'coherence' and 'cumulative knowledge'? All essential, also central to a quality education are SKILLS . I think popular microcredentials will be action-man-gal skill demonstrations. For mine, I’d like a microcredential course in welding. I want to cut and bond steel. I want to watch well-resourced on-line accredited videos explaining and showing everything. Do I need the weight of Socraties on my back .. to help me learn to weld? > The announcement's not about learning, or teaching .. it's just about a > 'credential'. No, it’s about learning to weld. Wanting a genuine, qualified skill .. welding, coding, whatevering. > It says nothing about the characteristics of people intended to enter > the process, nor even that the applicant for credential certification > might need to think about what those characteristics are, or even maybe > specify them. If I'm wrong, please point me to what I've missed. The whole > thing smacks of the bureaucracy-driven vacuousness that's afflicted the ed > sector for the last 20 years. Roger, just think .. microcredentials .... the quickest way to learn Cheers mate Stephen ___________________ On 30/3/22 2:27 pm, Stephen Loosley wrote: > 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 > > > > > -- Roger Clarke mailto:[email protected] T: +61 2 6288 6916 http://www.xamax.com.au http://www.rogerclarke.com Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd 78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law University of N.S.W. Visiting Professor in Computer Science Australian National University _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link _______________________________________________ Link mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
