This chapter lays the groundwork for understanding the expansion of micro-credentials across OECD countries and the growing need for coherence in their design, delivery and governance. While micro-credentials offer flexible, targeted learning opportunities that can better align with labour market needs, the lack of national frameworks can create barriers and confusion for learners and policymakers alike. The chapter outlines key concepts, including definitions and features of a harmonised system for micro-credentials, emphasising co‑ordination across education and training sectors, labour-market integration and learner accessibility.
International Review of Micro‑Credential Systems
From Fragmentation to Alignment
Abstract
The last decade has seen an expansion of micro-credentials in many OECD countries. The emergence of these new and innovative forms of education and training alongside traditional, comprehensive, full-length education programmes is contributing to a rich tapestry of learning opportunities that could help address the diverse needs of both learners and employers. Accompanying this proliferation of training formats is the co‑existence of different governance models for micro-credentials. In some cases, countries are operating with multiple definitions of micro-credentials within the same lifelong learning system, each with different size, certification form and method, and governance structure. For the learner, navigating a learning landscape with multiple micro-credentials definitions can be confusing, particularly if they coexist with yet other formal and non-formal short-term training courses. Without proper governance and oversight, micro-credential systems risk adding a new level of confusion and complexity for learners.
As provision of micro-credentials is increasing, there is a need for greater clarity on definition, purpose and delivery if this form of learning is to be well integrated into lifelong learning systems. This requires the creation of guiding principles for both the providers developing and delivering micro-credentials, as well as policymakers tasked with governing a micro-credential system. How to design the optimal system for micro-credentials will depend on many factors, including existing education and training systems, availability of skills intelligence, existing infrastructure for employer engagement, systems for engaging learners, and ultimately, the extent of gaps in existing learning provision that can be filled by micro-credentials.
This section provides a brief overview of the concepts of micro-credentials, harmonisation of micro-credentials systems, and how a select number of OECD countries (Australia, Estonia, Finland and Ireland) are progressing with their harmonisation projects.
Micro-credentials are a type of credit that individuals can earn by completing organised learning activities that are smaller, more focussed and more flexible than traditional (formal) education and training programmes (OECD, 2021[1]). They are often delivered wholly or partly online but can also be delivered face‑to-face. In its “Recommendation on a European approach to micro-credentials for lifelong learning and employability” (2022[2]) the Council of the European Union defines micro-credentials as:
“…the record of the learning outcomes that a learner has acquired following a small volume of learning. These learning outcomes will have been assessed against transparent and clearly defined criteria. Learning experiences leading to micro-credentials are designed to provide the learner with specific knowledge, skills and competences that respond to societal, personal, cultural, or labour market needs. Micro-credentials are owned by the learner, can be shared and are portable. They may be stand-alone or combined into larger credentials. They are underpinned by quality assurance following agreed standards in the relevant sector or area of activity”.
In many countries, “micro-credential” is not a regulated term, and different types of providers are offering education and training branded as “micro-credential” that vary in learning volume, delivery mode and content, and degree of formality, albeit all with the understanding that the micro-credential course is shorter than a traditional full-time qualification. This has led to the development of micro-credential courses in different education and training sectors, each with the own set of advantages and disadvantages. Diversified and decentralised training provision can address diverse training needs; however, it can also make it challenging for policymakers to ensure skill shortages are being sufficiently addressed, and for adults to navigate a jungle of information on training provision and the potential benefits of acquiring micro-credentials. Therefore, intervention by policymakers is likely necessary to ensure that micro-credential provision in a given system addresses the skill needs of the labour market and that adult have access to – and sufficient incentives to undertake – training. This report highlights four areas which policymakers can influence in order to improve the co‑ordination of provision of micro-credentials and increase uptake among adults, all of which contribute to the creation of more harmonised micro-credential systems. Therefore, throughout this report any reference to the term “micro-credential” is understood as provision that is government-backed or influenced by public policy.
In the context of micro-credential systems, the concept of “harmony” can best be interpreted to reflect three key dimensions. The first is the co‑ordination and collaboration among education and training providers within and across different education and training sectors. The second is the integration of labour market actors within the learning ecosystem, ensuring their voices are heard and reflected, as well as the use of labour market intelligence. The third involves fostering inclusivity by engaging learners from all backgrounds and circumstances. The connections between these different elements are essential for building a harmonised national micro-credential system.
The development of micro-credential systems typically starts with efforts to achieve harmonisation of micro-credential provision in individual education and training sectors, such as the higher education sector, the vocational education (VET) and training sector, and the adult learning sector. As such, four main areas of intervention are particularly important for system development and related policy:
1. Internal harmonisation of provision within education and training sectors: when micro-credential provision and standards are harmonised across providers within an education and training sector (higher education, VET, or non-formal training). This requires a level of standardisation within each sector, recognition and portability of micro-credentials across providers in the same sector, and can be achieved through a unified certification system. The forms of standardisation within these sectors may vary from country to country, notably in terms of possible approaches to definition, workload and quality assurance and accreditation.
2. Harmonisation of provision across education and training sectors: When approaches and architectures in different sectors permit micro-credentials to be portable and stackable across sectors. This would require providers from one sector to recognise and accept micro-credentials from a different sector, e.g. universities accepting micro-credential qualifications from adult learning institutions. Such systems would require all providers to undergo rigid quality assurance and for learning pathways across sectors to be defined (i.e. the portability and stackability of micro-credentials).
3. Labour-market orientation and integration: When labour-market needs are factored into the design of micro-credentials. This can be done through two mechanisms: 1) drawing on skill intelligence systems to determine in-demand occupations and skill needs, setting priorities for development of micro-credentials and their content, or 2) involvement of sector bodies and employers in development and/or delivery of micro-credentials (OECD, 2016[3]). Further, ensuring labour-market buy-in is crucial for the success of a harmonised system as workers can get rewarded for undertaking job-related micro-credentials.
4. Learner orientation: How micro-credentials systems reach, incentivise and support learners who wish or need to engage in the learning provided through this credential type. This includes ensuring that micro-credentials adhere to flexibility principles in adult learning, as well as implementing policies to centralise and disseminate learning information and outreach and, potentially, a range of complementary policies to support learners, such as Individual Learning Accounts or incentives for employer support to upskilling.
Micro-credentials as a tool of flexible adult learning policies
Flexible adult learning refers to educational and training opportunities tailored to the circumstances of adult learners, who often juggle work, family and other responsibilities while seeking to improve their skills. Unlike traditional, rigid education systems, flexible learning allows adults to reconcile education, training, and employment more easily.
Adult learning systems have traditionally relied on scheduled classes and fixed locations, often in classroom setting. However, the availability of more flexible forms of provision has expanded considerably, particularly since the COVID‑19 pandemic, with asynchronous, online and blended learning opportunities now more available across different levels and types of education and training. Flexible provision can increased adaptability across four key areas: time, place, mode, and content.
Time flexibility accommodates adults’ busy schedules by allowing them to choose when to learn, how long to engage, and how much time to dedicate. Courses can offer part-time options, asynchronous learning, and flexible start and finish dates.
Place flexibility addresses the challenge of inconvenient locations. Distance and online learning allow adults to participate from anywhere, reducing barriers related to physical attendance.
Mode flexibility caters to different learning preferences, combining online and in-person elements. Blended or hybrid learning environments, where instruction is delivered both online and face‑to-face, are becoming more common. This approach reduces commuting time and offers learners flexibility in how they engage with course material.
Content flexibility allows for personalised learning pathways. Modular courses offer learners the choice to study topics in a sequential or concurrent order, and advances in learning analytics are enhancing personalised education. This flexibility enables adult learners to pursue specific skills relevant to their career and personal goals.
Micro-credentials are considered a tool for flexible adult learning. This is because many micro-credential courses include characteristics such as self-paced learning and digital or hybrid delivery, and learners have the freedom to choose which micro-credential or bundle of micro-credential courses to undertake, allowing them to determine their own training pathway. Although these aspects are common for micro-credentials, they are not universal, and some micro-credentials adhere to more flexibility principles than others.
Source: OECD (2023[4]), “Flexible adult learning provision: What it is, why it matters, and how to make it work”, https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/topics/policy-sub-issues/adult-learning/booklet-flexibility-2023.pdf.
From a public policy perspective, the development of a harmonised micro-credential ecosystem requires co‑ordinated attention across several dimensions (Figure 1.1). First, achieving a coherence across education and training sectors requires the alignment of standards and education infrastructure, such as shared certification frameworks and recognition tools, to reduce fragmentation. Second, building trust in the system among education providers, employers and learners is essential, and robust quality assurance mechanisms and certification processes play an important role. Third, to ensure labour-market relevance it is key to leverage up-to-date skills intelligence and formalised employer engagement into the design and delivery of micro-credentials. Fourth, policy frameworks have to address the accessibility of micro-credentials by developing outreach strategies, targeted information campaigns, learner support and incentives, especially for groups most in need for upskilling and reskilling. Finally, long-term sustainability depends on securing adequate resourcing and funding models – which may be based on learner fees, public funding or a combination of these – that support the continuity and scalability of micro-credential offerings cross sectors.
Source: Author’s own elaboration.
1.2.1. Micro-credentials: Modularised qualifications or independent training
One important question that arises as micro-credential systems become more defined is whether or not micro-credentials should be a part of a modularised system or independent of existing qualifications. This has ramifications for how policymakers should address, among others, sectoral fragmentation, enhance labour market relevance and promote accessibility and inclusiveness (Box 1.2). Modularisation of training means breaking down a learning programme into a number of discrete modules which can make up the content of a micro-credential course. Learners obtain certifications for completed micro-credentials without having to complete the full qualification programme. Upon achieving a certain number of micro-credential certifications, learners can obtain a qualification which is the same as if they had completed a full-time learning programme (e.g. a technical qualification or a bachelor’s degree). The use of micro-credentials in the modularisation of full qualifications allows individuals to 1) gain recognition for shorter training courses, and 2) learn at their own speed, and obtain a full qualification at their own pace (OECD, 2023[4]). However, as it can be time consuming to update the curricula of full learning programmes, modularised micro-credentials might not be as responsive to labour market needs as those that are stand-alone. An example of modularisation of full degrees can be found in Denmark. Recent reforms in the VET sector allow students to obtain certificates for modules of a full qualification (European Commission, 2022[5]). The adult vocational training programmes (Arbejdsmarkedsuddannelser, AMU) offer short, flexible and modular training programmes for labour-market entry. Several courses are grouped into one module, and the learner can receive a certificate upon the completion of a module. Each course can last between a few days and six weeks, and the learner can take all courses in one continuous training programme or one‑by-one at the leaner’s own pace. The certificates are recognised by both the education sector for further training (VET and higher VET) and the labour market for access to employment.
Alternatively, micro-credentials can be independent from existing qualifications, as a complementary offer to existing education and training programmes. The rationale for implementing micro-credentials that are distinct and separate from existing qualifications is, firstly, that the design and implementation of these micro-credentials is quicker, making such courses more responsive and adaptive to changing skill needs, and, secondly, that upskilling and reskilling needs can often be met through smaller and shorter learning experience than traditional qualifications. Guaranteeing responsiveness to labour market requirements does imply a strong role for labour-market information and labour market actors (such as individual employers, employer associations and unions) in developing micro-credentials.
Micro-credentials are increasingly used to deliver flexible and targeted learning. Policymakers and institutions face a strategic choice: integrate micro-credentials as modular components of full qualifications or offer them as standalone training credits. Each approach serves distinct learner and labour market needs.
An emerging hybrid model leverages both functions, where one sector (e.g. VET) implements a modular micro-credential system while another sector (e.g. higher education) has standalone micro-credentials, but these micro-credentials are governed under the same harmonised system for micro-credentials.
Source: Distinction based on author’s elaboration and findings from European Commission (2021[6]), A European Approach to Micro-Credentials, https://education.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2022-01/micro-credentials%20brochure%20updated.pdf; OECD (2023[7]), “Public policies for effective micro-credential learning”, https://doi.org/10.1787/a41f148b-en; and European Training Foundation (2022[8]), Guide to Design, Issue and Recognise Micro-Credentials, https://www.etf.europa.eu/sites/default/files/2023-05/Micro-Credential%20Guidelines%20Final%20Delivery.pdf.
1.2.2. Harmonisation in practice: Case studies of selected countries
Policymakers are faced with a range of decisions to make and trade‑offs to consider when seeking to develop a harmonised micro-credential system. This complex decision-making process can be informed partly by the experience of international examples. A review of international good practices can help to lay the foundations for a strategic and sustainable approach by highlighting the different pathways towards harmonisation that have been attempted, highlighting the strengths, weaknesses and complexities of policy decisions and how they fit into a wider lifelong learning system.
This report analyses these policy areas through two mechanisms: firstly, by analysing in depth the micro-credential systems of four countries (Australia, Estonia, Finland and Ireland) and how different aspects of micro-credential systems interact with each other, the labour market and learners. The goal is to highlight the continuity of policy design decisions. These countries have been selected based on a) the maturity of the micro-credential systems and b) the diversity of strategies for harmonisation. Secondly, this report supplements the in-depth analysis of the four selected systems with examples of other countries that have (at least partially) attempted to implement micro-credential systems by highlighting certain policy solutions for specific challenges. Although micro-credential provision (i.e. short-form training) has existed for some time, micro-credential systems (i.e. formalised and government-supported micro-credentials) are somewhat novel (OECD, 2023[7]). For all examples analysed in this report, micro-credentials are in early phases, while cohesive micro-credential systems that cover the aspects mentioned so far (higher education, VET, non-formal adult learning, labour-market inclusivity and learner orientation) are not fully implemented in any countries reviewed. The drawback of this is that it is not yet possible to fully distil the impact of micro-credential policies on training participation and skill supply. However, this report is timely in that it captures the strategic decision making that is being carried out during the moment of inception of micro-credential systems, thus providing valuable information for policymakers ready to embark on the journey of harmonising micro-credential systems.
Table 1.2 maps key findings identified in this report and illustrates that harmonisation can be approached through different policy areas at different stages of implementation. Chapter 2 will look at harmonisation among providers within and across different education and training sectors, while Chapter 3 will address how to align micro-credential systems to learner’s needs and labour-market shortages.
Areas of strong policy focus for the comparator countries
Source: Author’s own elaboration.