There are no shortages of articles and books about the shift in higher education from a focus on degrees to a focus on short-term certificates and other credentials that provide students with a career boost as well as applicable credits towards a degree. Recently, I wrote about a Burning Glass Institute paper that reported a decline in the number of jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree.
In a recently published open-source paper titled A Strategic Reset: Micro-credentials for Higher Education Leaders, Rory McGreal and Don Olcott, Jr. provide a micro-credentials primer for higher education leaders to help them “assess their readiness and alignment to engage in the micro-credential market.” Unlike other articles and books, the authors do not provide a framework or roadmap for how to enter the market. Their article is written in three parts. Part I provides key definitions for a better understanding of micro-credentials. Part II provides a snapshot of the global micro-credentials market, focusing on the regions with extensive activity. The last section provides a few thoughts about the future of micro-credentials as well as considerations for university leaders.
Part I provides descriptions and definitions of micro-credentials as offered in the U.S. and other regions of the world. Notably, the section is organized like a literature review with detailed sources where additional published information can be read. Some of the key points listed are:
- Micro-credentials are certified documents that provide recognized proofs of the achievement of learning outcomes from shorter, less duration, educational or training activities.
- A micro-credential can be accepted for credit by an institution or organization or be an attestation for employers.
- The micro-credentials landscape can be a means of accentuating assessment and validation processes.
- Learners want micro-credentials to be transparent and applicable to formal credentials.
- Micro-credentials may or may not be stackable or combinable toward higher qualifications, and in some cases may be accepted into formal certificate and/or degree credit programs.
- In many institutions, micro-credentials can be credit or non-credit and both may or may not apply to a higher credential.
- In the U.S., accrediting commissions have not held oversight over non-credit programming offered by colleges.
- Specialized accrediting agencies that provide oversight over professional programs are positioned to play a more involved role in ensuring the quality of both credit and non-credit course offerings.
- In Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, national qualification frameworks are driving micro-credential development with a focus on academic credit-bearing micro-credentials.
A frequently overlooked barrier to implementing micro-credentials is the lack of documented data demonstrating market need. Because few senior leaders understand micro-credentials, there are few financial and human resources allocated to institutional implementations. Viewing micro-credentials as an add-on rather than a strategic alignment with other university goals is a major impediment. Because learners want more options at lower costs to support their education and training for jobs, institutions should integrate micro-credential initiatives with current institutional programs.
The last section of Part I discusses the key factors regarding recognizing and accepting academic credit for micro-credentials. The key factors as presented by the authors include:
- Micro-credentials removed a traditional variable associated with the awarding of academic credit – TIME, in the classroom, online, or onsite doing research.
- Notional time has been used by competency-based education proponents to address the concerns of credit-hour supporters.
- Even when an institution accepts transfer credit, it becomes apparent that transferability and applicability are not the same thing.
- A major impediment has been the reluctance of faculty to recognize the value of credentials earned elsewhere.
- Micro-credentials for formal credit must include an assessment of learning achievement.
- Universities and colleges have historically not focused on establishing policies and processes for converting non-credit or non-formal education activities to academic credit.
Part II provides what the authors term a snapshot of the global micro-credential landscape. They add that the onset of the global pandemic has been a catalyst for expansion of micro-credentials as unemployment and devastating economic crises during the pandemic have crippled many industries and sectors. Europe, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia have taken the lead in supporting micro-credentials, particularly among colleges and universities. Private providers have also increased their initiatives to address skills and competency markets.
The authors discuss how sometimes it is difficult to understand how the U.S. maintains the strongest higher education institutions in the world when there is not a national framework like most European nations. Since the Covid pivot, most U.S. universities and colleges have developed their distance education capabilities, and many have a history building public-private partnerships for workforce training and economic development. Despite not having a national framework, U.S. institutions are already offering a range of micro-credentials with substantial opportunities to expand. Leaders in micro-credential offerings in the U.S. include: edX, Udacity nanodegrees, Coursera specializations, and MIT’s MicroMasters. Western Governors University leads the competency-based for-credit initiatives.
Despite having these leaders, the authors write that the micro-credential landscape is massive, confusing, unclear, and difficult to navigate for students and employers. Unbundling ad re-combining will be messy because faculty are not certain what they are creating. Many employers are still unaware and/or confused about micro-credentials.
“Micro-credentials are built around specific competencies where the student/employee can demonstrate minimum levels of performance to be certified by a designated agency at a specific skill domain level.” The authors maintain that there will be differences around the world how micro-credential policies, certifications, standards, and stackability evolve. However, the goals will be: 1) to provide employees and employers a stronger talent pool, 2) to provide increased value-added capacity for companies and organizations as well as employees to thrive, and 3) to contribution to the overall workforce and economic development locally, regionally, and sometimes nationally.
In their Summary section, the authors write that the critical strategic reset question for university leaders is not how to engage in micro-credentials, but should they engage at all in micro-credentials and if so, to what extent?
Digitization is driving the change in higher education and micro-credential initiatives can be part of the digital delivery of programs.
Many micro-credentials will not be stackable without major overhauls in degree programs. Because overhauls take time, micro-credentials will remain short-term focused. Stackability looks good in theory but in practice is not practical in many cases.
Institutional leaders who believe that micro-credentials will be their next revenue stream source should reevaluate their analysis. If viewed as “nice-to-do” or as an “extra”, micro-credentials will face financial challenges. Degree program revenues are higher and more sustainable than micro-credential revenues.
The authors write that a major cost factor of micro-credentials is the work needed to develop, administer, and validate assessment instruments for the awarding of credentials. Consortia initiatives will likely be less risky and cheaper than developing micro-credentials for a single institution. In the U.S., public systems have the wherewithal to develop and offer micro-credentials across a number of member institutions.
Lastly, micro-credential initiatives will not be able to resolve institutional financial challenges. With sound planning and integration, micro-credentials may be a conduit to collaboration with the private sector and employers that expand opportunities for the institution and its students.
For institutional leaders looking for a thoroughly written and well-researched quick read about micro-credentials, this may be the best that I have read. McGreal and Olcott have provided multiple links for research that supports many of the facts presented in their paper. Their concluding remarks, that implementing micro-credentials without strategically aligning them to the institution’s mission and existing curriculum is a mistake, are spot on.
I would wager that many leaders will choose not to implement micro-credentials after reading about the degree overhaul work required to integrate them in the curriculum. At the same time, digitization of all courses and curriculum will enable the alignment of micro-credentials and degree programs if the institution is willing to compensate faculty for their work in overhauling existing degree programs.
Developing and integrating micro-credentials will not provide a short-term return on investment for smaller universities and colleges and for that reason, I suspect many universities and college will consider micro-credentials as add-ons. In the short-term, it’s likely that private companies or employers will develop micro-credentials to reskill or upskill their employees at a faster rate than universities and colleges. McGreal and Olcott provide excellent advice – if you’re not all in, don’t do it. I concur.
