{"schema_version":"ICEQC_NEWS_ARTICLE_V1","id":"iceqc-news-2c74bf48030e63e1","slug":"2022-10-26-micro-credentials-an-evidence-led-improvement-method","language":"en","publication_status":"READY_FOR_IMPORT","publication_date":"2022-10-26","last_modified_date":"2022-10-26","title":"Micro-credentials: an evidence-led improvement method","summary":"Describes how improvement in micro-credentials: an evidence-led improvement method can be planned, measured and maintained through clear responsibility and follow-up evidence.","category":{"code":"QUALITY_IMPROVEMENT_METHODS","label":"Quality Improvement Methods"},"article_type":"Quality improvement method","publisher":"International Council for Education Quality Certification (ICEQC)","jurisdictional_scope":"International","historical_reference_basis":"Council Recommendation adopted in June 2022","reference_authority":"Relevant public authorities and official international sources","sections":[{"heading":null,"paragraphs":["The council Recommendation adopted in June 2022 provides the immediate reference point for consideration of micro-credentials in 2022. Oversight of micro-credentials should reflect the principle that the purpose of an improvement method is not to produce an action plan; it is to change a material condition and verify that the change is sustained.","The instrument identified by the council Recommendation adopted in June 2022 provides a formal policy reference for the issue under review. In relation to micro-credentials, this distinction protects learners from overstated claims and enables providers to plan against a defined obligation."]},{"heading":"Improvement objective and baseline","paragraphs":["The 2022 Council Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials sets out elements for their description and design, including learning outcomes, workload, assessment, level where applicable, form of participation and quality information. The approach is intended to support transparency and portability. It does not make short learning experiences automatically recognised; providers should state purpose, awarding responsibility and recognition conditions accurately.","The quality significance of the improvement objective follows from a basic distinction between availability and effective provision. Oversight of the practice should reflect the principle that learners should receive accurate information about the status, level, content and recognition of learning before committing time or money across jurisdictions.","The technical issue within the issue under review concerns the basis on which a conclusion is reached. A decision concerning the issue under review should recognise that the subject should be examined as a connected system of policy, people, resources, decisions and evidence. End-to-end assurance is required because individual functions may operate as designed while the combined process fails. The judgement should state its supporting evidence and any condition limiting application to the declared scope.","Implementation of the intervention should be organised around a decision that can be tested. The analysis of the corrective programme proceeds on the basis that follow-up should determine whether the change is embedded in ordinary operations and whether it has created new risks or unequal effects. Oversight requires a traceable line from the approved objective through responsible action to evidence of outcome.","Assurance of the intervention should draw on more than one form of evidence. Useful records include complaint and appeal routes, documented credit and recognition decisions, secure and verifiable learner records, clear identification of providers and awarding bodies, and outcomes for mobile and non-mobile learners. Evidence of effectiveness should represent the declared scope, including adverse and exceptional cases."],"bullets":["Apply criteria consistently.","Monitor partner and jurisdictional risks.","Identify the authority responsible for each decision.","Provide support suited to mobile learners.","Preserve verifiable records."]},{"heading":"Controls and accountable action","paragraphs":["The principal risks in relation to micro-credentials are jurisdictional uncertainty in complaints, loss of records across borders, support gaps for mobile learners, and different treatment of comparable learning. A weakness in one part of the control environment may obscure a related failure elsewhere.","For operational examination of the matter, authorities and providers should proceed in a defined sequence. The method for the practice is to map the complete process, identify the intended result and responsible authority at each stage, and test normal cases together with exceptions. Review should establish the reach of the condition before determining the corrective response. In relation to micro-credentials, the record should distinguish a finding that requires action from an observation that supports no formal conclusion.","The improvement record for the practice should contain the verified problem, affected scope, immediate containment, causal analysis, selected intervention, accountable owner, resources, milestones and effectiveness measure. Reporting should distinguish work performed from the outcome demonstrated after implementation. Unfinished work and remaining exposure should be reported rather than absorbed into a general statement of progress.","Interpretation of the intervention should avoid two errors: treating a formal commitment as proof of effect, and treating one adverse case as proof that every part of the system has failed. The analysis of the intervention proceeds on the basis that transparency supports fair decision-making but does not make qualifications automatically equivalent. Transparency does not make qualifications automatically equivalent; recognition requires a documented judgement for a stated purpose. Oversight of the practice should reflect the principle that improvement data should not be selected only because it is readily available.","The assurance record for the corrective programme should retain the date of the evidence, the source responsible for it, the scope examined and the version of any instrument or definition applied. This enables later review to separate substantive change from correction, reclassification or expanded coverage. Revision should not remove an earlier conclusion from the record where reliance has occurred.","Where the intervention involves partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. The division of responsibilities should cover records, communication, escalation and the power to require correction. Protection should operate across the complete service, irrespective of how delivery is divided.","The appropriate response to the corrective programme is therefore one of controlled implementation and review. The decision record should state the unsupported element and the further work required."]}],"word_count":815,"content_hash":"sha256-793db3c17a88e8163627e906e9dd7ec53a32c60e1b8cc26492a2fc095f2cf481","seo_keywords":["micro-credentials","education quality improvement","education quality","ICEQC"],"schema_type":"TechArticle"}