Micro-credentials: transparency, learning outcomes and evidence requirements

Consideration of micro-credentials should retain the date and status of Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022. Later developments should not be read into the position available at publication. Examination of the matter should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event. Arrangements for the matter should provide accurate information, timely support and an accessible route for correction or review without adverse treatment. Governance of the applicable requirement requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. The responsible body should receive matters requiring resources, policy change or formal risk acceptance.

The council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 provides a policy reference for the assurance conclusion. Any indicator used in relation to the applicable requirement should distinguish description from causal explanation. As regards micro-credentials, the result should be accompanied by distributional information, uncertainty and limits on transfer to another setting. Review of the assurance conclusion should follow a stated and reproducible method, including the decision rule, sampling basis, treatment of exceptions and threshold for escalation. Arrangements for the applicable expectation should provide accurate information, timely support and an accessible route for correction or review without adverse treatment.

At the publication date, Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022 provides the relevant international context for the matter. When examining micro-credentials, any consequential application still requires evidence from the affected jurisdiction or institution. Examination of the matter should include the experience of affected learners, particularly where aggregate reporting may conceal exclusion, delay or unequal treatment. The record for the control should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route.

A proper review of the applicable requirement should establish the intended outcome before selecting controls or indicators. Public information on the applicable expectation should state the applicable scope and limitations in terms that affected users can understand, including the basis for any later correction.

Scope and application of micro-credentials

Review of the control should include the experience of affected learners, particularly where aggregate reporting may conceal exclusion, delay or unequal treatment. For micro-credentials, review should cover the stages at which learners receive information, provision, assessment, support and remedy.

Review of the control should be based on a stated method rather than general assurance. Interpretation of the applicable expectation should identify the required outcome, the scope to which it applies and the evidence capable of demonstrating effective operation. Volume does not cure a gap in relevance. The record for the applicable expectation should identify the responsible function, decision authority and escalation route.

Failure in relation to the control may arise even where the stated policy is reasonable. Governance of the control requires a clear allocation of authority, information and follow-through. In reviewing micro-credentials, escalation should place material evidence before the authority capable of an effective response. The principal risks associated with the matter should be assessed as connected conditions.

Assurance of the control should draw on more than one form of evidence. The public-interest assessment of the applicable expectation should consider access, learning, fair treatment and the reliability of information on which learners make consequential decisions. In the context of micro-credentials, system-wide assurance cannot be inferred from a favourable case chosen after the event.

Evidence required

Authorities and providers reviewing micro-credentials should proceed in a defined sequence. Public information on the applicable requirement should state the applicable scope and limitations in terms that affected users can understand, including the basis for any later correction. Expand the sample where an exception, complaint or material unexplained variation indicates that the initial evidence may not be representative. Improvement work on the control should begin with a verified problem, defined baseline and measurable outcome. Completion should depend on evidence of effect rather than completion of planned activity.

In reviewing micro-credentials, interpretation should retain uncertainty, distributional differences and limits on generalisation. If an alternative method is accepted, the record should demonstrate that it achieves the same required outcome. Interpretation of the matter should identify the required outcome, the scope to which it applies and the evidence capable of demonstrating effective operation.

When examining micro-credentials, earlier conclusions should remain traceable if they affected a learner, provider or public decision.

Decision criteria and exceptions

Proportionality in relation to micro-credentials does not mean reduced protection for learners exposed to greater risk. Transparency supports fair decision-making but does not make qualifications automatically equivalent. A recognition decision should identify the criteria applied and the use for which equivalence or acceptance is being considered. A prescribed method should not be treated as the only acceptable method where another approach establishes the same outcome with equivalent evidence. Review of the control should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event.

For decisions concerning micro-credentials, where responsibilities for delivery are shared with partners, suppliers or several public bodies, responsibility should be mapped across the complete service. Responsibility for the applicable expectation should be identifiable at each consequential decision point. Delegation should identify both the operating role and the body retaining oversight of learner impact. Learner safeguards associated with micro-credentials should remain continuous where provision is delivered by several bodies.

As regards micro-credentials, progress should not be assessed by the amount of policy or documentation produced. Review of the applicable requirement should give particular attention to adverse cases, unequal effects and errors that learners may be unable to identify or remedy after the event.