International Review of Micro‑Credential Systems

2. Micro-credentials across different education and training sectors

Abstract

This chapter examines how countries are working to harmonise micro-credential provision across education and training providers, highlighting the opportunities and challenges of co‑ordinating rapidly expanding systems. While higher education institutions and other providers have actively introduced micro-credentials, uncoordinated growth risks creating fragmentation and confusion for learners and employers. Drawing on case studies from Australia, Estonia, Finland and Ireland, the chapter analyses different approaches to defining, governing and scaling micro-credentials within and across sectors. It focusses on key mechanisms for harmonisation, including national frameworks and legal definitions, quality assurance models and systems enabling stackability and portability of credits. The chapter also explores trade‑offs between flexibility and standardisation, showing how countries balance innovation with the need for trust, transparency and labour market relevance.

As micro-credential training is an established tool of flexible learning, providers at the forefront of adult learning are already offering micro-credential courses. Higher education institutions have been some of the first to offer this new type of training (OECD, 2021[1]). The existence of institution-led micro-credentials is a positive sign that education and training providers are willing and ready to embrace (often with policy encouragement) a new form of learning to increase learner engagement and offer training that is potentially under-provided in the market. However, co‑ordination across different training providers is not an easy task (even if they are from the same education and training sector). It requires key decisions to be made regarding definitions, standards, content, recognition, funding and more. Common standards and policy support is also needed to expand micro-credentials to other education and training sectors that have not yet implemented them. The risk of leaving all responsibility of co‑ordination to the providers themselves risks creating a market for micro-credentials that is complex and confusing both for new providers, learners and employers (who want to validate the learning of their employees). Further, if the goal is to leverage micro-credentials to address specific skills needs and gaps, there needs to be sufficient institutionalised support to identify these gaps – something education and training institutions might not be equipped to do themselves.

Harmonisation of approaches to micro-credentials across providers can take two main forms; harmonisation of provision within an education or training sector (such as higher education, VET or non-formal adult learning) or harmonisation of micro-credentials across education and training sectors. This chapter will look at these two types of harmonisation. This chapter presents the micro-credential system of four countries: Australia, Estonia, Finland and Ireland. It relies on in-depth interviews with policymakers in those countries.

2.1. Mapping the micro-credential landscape: International examples

2.1.1. Australia

In the aftermath of the COVID‑19 crisis, the Australian Government focussed on addressing skills mismatches by improving the transition from education to work and increasing participation in lifelong learning. Along with a changing education landscape, there has been a growing demand in Australia for shorter courses that enable workers to upskill quickly and encourage lifelong learning.

In 2 019, the Australian Government reviewed the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) to begin work on developing guidelines for the recognition of micro-credentials for credit towards AQF qualifications. In June 2020, the government announced the creation of the Microcredentials Marketplace, later named “MicroCred Seeker”, a national platform listing micro-credential courses. The platform was launched in December 2022 and operational until 2026.To support the structure of the Microcredentials Marketplace, the Australian Government released the National Microcredentials Framework in March 2022 to provide guidance on a national definition of micro-credentials in Australia.

In November 2022, the Australian Government launched the Microcredentials Pilot in Higher Education (2023‑2026), which supports the development and delivery of micro-credentials in higher education with an AUD 18.5 million (around EUR 11.2 million) subsidy. Proclaimed aims of micro-credentials under the pilot are industry engagement and open access to higher education in Australia. The pilot programme is designed to operationalise and test the micro-credential concept within higher education providers. The pilot’s core objective is to assist higher education institutions in designing and delivering micro-credential courses in fields of national priority – addressing skill shortages in key industries – while expanding access to lifelong learning for a broad range of students (Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[9]). In practice, this means developing short, targeted courses that enable workers and learners to up- or reskill quickly in areas that meet labour market needs (Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[9]). The strategy for the implementation of the micro-credential pilot is informed by the labour market analysis of Jobs and Skills Australia.

The pilot has two funding rounds. The first one awarded grants to 18 higher education providers to develop 28 new micro-credential courses in priority sectors like teaching, nursing, IT, engineering and science (Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[9]; Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[10]). The second round expanded the pilot, funding an additional 45 micro-credential courses across 22 providers (Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[9]; Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[11]). Courses funded under the pilot were also required to be listed on the MicroCred Seeker national platform for transparency and oversight (Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[9]).

The Australian Government allocated AUD 2 million for the development of new micro-credential courses and an additional AUD 16.5 million to support their delivery to approximately 4 000 students (Australian Government - Department of Education, 2024[9]).

2.1.2. Estonia

Estonia is in the process of implementing a structured national approach to micro-credentials, which in Estonia are referred to as “micro-qualifications”. This initiative is embedded within recent amendments to the Adult Education Act.

To facilitate the implementation of micro-qualifications, the Estonian Quality Agency for Education (HAKA) – which is responsible for quality in all sectors of education and training – conducted a pilot (2019‑2022) to test a custom external quality assessment for non-formal providers. The pilot offered key insights – especially the importance of targeted, field-level assessments and fast, proportionate procedures for short, fast-changing courses.

In Estonia, micro-credentials are delivered by providers in all three education and training sectors, including higher education institutions, VET institutions, and non-formal adult training providers, such as private companies, libraries, hospitals, and non-governmental organisations. While the provider type is not restricted, all entities offering micro-credentials are required to comply with the provisions set out in the Adult Education Act (Cirlan, 2023[12]). When consulted for this report, the ministry also highlighted that VET institutions have been less active in developing and offering micro-credentials due to their already fragmented courses structures. There is ongoing work to define and expand micro-credentials in this sector.

Estonia is investing significantly in adult learning and flexible training opportunities, including micro-credentials, notably with financial support from the European Union. In 2023, an ESF+ supported programme was approved to promote lifelong learning and increase participation in upskilling and reskilling. The support measure, worth over EUR 70 million, is funded primarily by the European Union (approx. EUR 49 million),1 with national co-funding covering the remainder (Republic of Estonia: Ministry of Education and Research, 2023[13]). According to the Ministry of Education and Research, public funding for micro-credentials is currently split between the ministry, (covering approximately three‑quarters of the total financing), and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications contributes the remaining one‑quarter.

2.1.3. Finland

Finland’s skills development system is one of the most successful in the OECD. Its adult population has the highest levels of literacy and numeracy in the OECD according to the 2023 OECD Survey of Adult Skills (OECD, 2024[14]). However, despite high shares of adult learning participation, the Finnish system has been facing challenges related to job-related training. Notably, there have been limited upskilling opportunities for adults with a vocational qualification and, more generally, limited availability of short courses relevant to the labour market. Due to training provision and financial incentives, adults in Finland often participate in formal full-length education (such as bachelor’s degrees) when they wish to up- or reskill, rather than short and targeted job-related training. Further, many adult learning opportunities in Finland have not historically been aligned with labour market needs and the participation gap between low-skilled and high-skilled adults has persisted (OECD, 2024[14]).

To address these challenges, the Service Centre for Continuous Learning and Employment (JOTPA in its Finnish abbreviation) was founded in 2021. Working under the shared responsibility the Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, JOTPA’s main mission is to address immediate and emerging skill demands in the labour market and address gaps in the existing lifelong learning system. JOTPA organises its activity around this mission by a) identifying unmet skills needs through labour market analysis and foresight, and b) providing funding via state grants and public procurement of training providers for the development of short programmes that respond to these skill gaps.

Since 2023, a working group led by the Ministry of Education and Culture has been working on a national micro-credential concept for higher education (OECD, 2023[15]). The working group brings together representatives from higher education institutions (including universities and universities of applied sciences), the Finnish Education Evaluation Centre and the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment. The micro-credential project is structured into two phases – and initial “definition phase”, which started in early 2023, and a second “development and experimental phase” which is expected to last until the end of 2025.

As of March 2025, the working group has published a draft national framework for micro-credentials in higher education, which is available online (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2023[16]). The ministry commissioned JOTPA to organise a pilot of micro-credentials in higher education to test the draft framework. The objective for micro-credentials in higher education is to provide high-quality labour-market relevant courses for up- and re‑skilling.

The pilot on micro-credentials in higher education encompasses eight pilot projects from seven higher education institutions (JOTPA, 2024[17]). The pilots commenced in January 2025 and in January 2026, the pilot project returned their reports which evaluate the functionality of the draft framework, and re‑commenced its activities in May 2026. Based on these reports the working group will consider if there are any needs for adjustments of the framework and implementation plan.

The pilot project reserved EUR 3 million for procurement of eight pilot projects, with each pilot being allocated between EUR 82 000 and EUR 370 000 (JOTPA, 2024[17]). The pilots are funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture. The selection of higher education institutions for the pilot project is determined through a public procurement process, and the offer is available for universities, colleges, private providers of education, private companies and educational subsidiaries owned by municipalities and joint municipal authorities. Participants in the pilot include two universities and seven universities of applied sciences. Currently, there are no non-formal providers of micro-credentials included in the pilot, however, the draft national framework can be used non-formal providers to offer courses in line with formal providers.

In the VET sector, qualification requirements and the qualification units included in qualifications are defined national by the Finnish National Agency for Education through regulations. Vocational qualification are composed of qualification units, which can be offered separately or combined into smaller learning opportunities that support continuous learning and skills development (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2024[18]). In practice, VET providers have been able to offer individual qualification units, as well as combinations of qualification units, since the 2018 reform of vocational education and training. Since then, the system has been continuously developed to strengthen the role of qualification units as flexible learning opportunities, particularly for adult learners seeking targeted competences for employment, upskilling, or career development rather than full qualifications (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2024[18]; Government of Finland - Ministry of Education and Culture, 2025[19]). Recent legislative reforms affecting the education system continue this development (Government of Finland - Ministry of Education and Culture, 2025[19]).

Unlike in higher education, qualification units (VQUs) in the VET sector are nationally regulated modules that form part of full vocational qualifications. The Finnish National Agency for Education is responsible for defining the learning outcomes and competence requirements of these qualification units, while VET providers decide which units or combination of units they offer (Finnish National Agency for Education, n.d.[20]; Finnish National Agency for Education, 2024[18]). A new VET funding system scheduled for implementation in 2026 is expected to further support the provision of qualification units and their use in flexible learning, by making such provision more economically viable for VET institutions (Finnish National Agency for Education, 2024[18]).

2.1.4. Ireland

Ireland has a long history of incorporating short learning programmes into its education and training landscape. Since 2003, short-form learning programmes have been included in the Irish National Framework for Qualifications (NFQ), in the form of “minor”, “special purpose” and “supplemental” awards. Such accredited short courses have been offered by training providers in both the higher education sector and in the further education and training sector.

The term “micro-credentials” was fist referred to in Irish policy in 2019 with The Human Capital Initiative to support the development of micro-credentials in higher education (McCoshan, 2023[21]). The goal of the Human Capital Initiative (HCI) was to increase the capacity of education institutions in the higher education sector to provide courses in support of national priority skills. One pillar of the HCI is the Towards a Multi-Campus Micro-Credentials (MC2) System project or MicroCreds Initiative, a five‑year programme (2020‑2025) led by the Irish Universities’ Association (IUA). The project was awarded EUR 12.3 million to be used over five years (2020‑2025) to establish the MC2 system across seven universities. Through the MC2 project, IAU universities developed a co‑ordinated framework for the design and recognition of ECTS-aligned micro-credentials (McCoshan, 2023[21]). This framework supports institutions in extracting high-demand modules from existing programmes and create new courses that are tailored to the needs of both the labour market and learners. The micro-credentials are accredited by each university and included in the NFQ (QQI, 2021[22]). The MicroCreds initiative has also set up an enterprise‑led partnership to facilitate alignment with labour market needs, as well as a national portal to promote awareness of micro-credentials in higher education. The project is driven by several key factors: the promotion of lifelong learning, the need for upskilling and reskilling in response to COVID‑19, and the demands of the digital and green transitions.

In parallel, SOLAS, the state agency responsible for further education and training (FET) in Ireland has been working on implementing flexible adult learning.2 In recent years, the FET sector has become a major part of Ireland’s strategy for lifelong learning, workforce development and inclusion, with a special importance placed on the role of further education and training in the post-COVID recover and transition to a green and digital economy.

In 2019, SOLAS launched the Skills to Advance initiative to enable targeted support for vulnerable groups in the Irish workforce, such as low-skilled workers, and also support small and medium-sized enterprises who need assistance to invest in and develop their workforce (SOLAS, n.d.[23]). Courses under the Skills to Advance initiative are delivered by the 16 Education and Training Boards (ETBs), which are the main FET providers in Ireland and are geographically dispersed across the country. Micro-credentials were introduced through the FET strategy for 2020‑2024. In the FET sector, these courses are called “micro-qualifications” and focus initially on critical skill areas for the Irish economy. SOLAS piloted the development of a FET micro-qualification model applicable across the FET sector in Ireland with Quality and Qualification Ireland (QQI, the state agency for quality in the further and higher education system), the ETBs, and enterprise agencies. Utilising the Skills to Advance Innovation through Collaboration fund, the model is being cascaded across the FET sector. Through the pilot, FET micro-qualifications are being embedded in the NFQ by validating them as special-purpose awards (stackable, certificated modules and micro-credentials).

The FET sector and ETBs also have a tradition of offering vendor certifications, such as integrating Microsoft-accredited certifications in ETB training programmes (McCoshan, 2023[21]). This is enabled through strong co‑operation with key labour market actors.

As such, Ireland operates with two frameworks for micro-credentials. However, though the initiatives are running in parallel, both initiatives reference the NFQ and the quality is recognised by the same state agency, QQI.

2.2. Identifying harmonisation mechanisms across providers

Internal harmonisation, that is harmonisation within an education or training sector such as higher education, VET or non-formal adult learning, implies a common approach to micro-credentials within that education and training sector. The use of the term “micro-credential” is generally not regulated in national education and training systems, though some countries are starting to introduce the concept in their legal framework In most countries, any private and public provider can offer short-term training courses that are marketed as micro-credentials, without there necessarily being consensus on what constitutes a micro-credential in that system (OECD, 2024[24]). The benefit of standardisation is that it offers a framework and guidelines for training providers in designing micro-credentials, delivering training and integrating them with their existing training offers. This can, in theory, prompt more education and training providers to offer more courses. Standardisation also makes it possible to build a common language for micro-credentials, making it easier for learners to navigate training offers and allows the sector to build a purpose, vision and identity for micro-credentials that can be marketed and targeted at key learners.

The flipside of standardisation is that it may become too rigid, limiting the responsiveness of micro-credentials to learner and labour market needs and creating demanding administrative processes that could dissuade providers from creating and delivering micro-credential programmes. The question therefore becomes how to harmonise provision within a sector and take advantage of a “micro-credential brand” without creating too many roadblocks.

2.2.1. Defining micro-credentials: Legal definitions and national frameworks

For the learner, micro-credentials can offer a way for individuals to convey the extent of their skillset to current and prospective employers and open up new career opportunities as a result. For this to occur, the micro-credential course must be delivered in the context of a trusted and well-recognised framework that clearly defines the level, workload and stated learning outcomes associated with micro-credentials and certifies these in a reliable and easily understood way. This “common language” of micro-credentials facilitates the signalling between training providers, learners and employers.

Public authorities can use different types of regulatory policy levers to govern and steer micro-credential offerings. Frameworks to define and structure provision of micro-credential offerings can be enshrined in laws that provide an overarching legal framework. In Estonia, for example, micro-qualifications have been embedded in the amendments to the Adult Education Act. The inclusion of micro-qualifications amendments to the Act is quite recent, with the approval by the government taking place in July 2024 (Republic of Estonia: Ministry of Education and Research, 2024[25]), and enacting by the Estonian Parliament in January 2025 (Riigikogu - Cultural Affairs Committee, 2025[26]).

The Act defines micro-qualifications explicitly as educational modules with workloads ranging from 5 to 30 ECTS. Credentials from these modules are officially registered in the Estonian Education Information System, the national register of education (Riigikogu - Cultural Affairs Committee, 2025[26]). Moreover, the amendments include principles of provision and a quality assurance mechanism, aiming at extending the micro-qualifications system to vocational education and adult training institutions (European Commission, 2024[27]). The amendments, formalise the provision of micro-credentials in law, expand it from higher education, to include vocational and adult-training institutions, and make using the Estonian Education Information System for course design a mandatory requirement for funding. Since the pilot ended, Estonia has been working to put in place a full-scale micro-qualification system. (Riigikogu - Cultural Affairs Committee, 2025[26]; Täiskasvanute koolituse seadus (lühend - TäKS), 2025[28]). From 2026, VET centres and higher education institutions have started to offer adults free micro-qualification programmes in areas with high labour-market demand (Eurydice, 2026[29]).

Setting legal requirements for micro-credentials is not yet common, as it is an administrative and legal process that can take considerable time, and the term “micro-credentials” is new in many jurisdictions. According to data collected through the OECD Higher Education Policy Survey 2022, one‑fifth of responding countries have set legal requirements for publicly funded higher education institutions to offer upskilling and reskilling programmes targeted to adult learners, which in some cases explicitly mention micro-credentials as a tool to achieve this (OECD, 2023[7]). In Spain, for instance, comparatively recent legislation (Organic Law 2/2023) makes reference to the role of universities in lifelong learning and addresses micro-credentials as one of the lifelong learning programmes universities may offer (OECD, 2023[7]). In Portugal, the Decree‑Law no. 27/2021, of 16 April, introduces the possibility of creation and delivery of short-training courses (including micro-credentials) by universities. Since then, several universities and Higher VET are offering modular education and training conducing to micro-credentials.

Other countries have opted to define micro-credentials through non-binding guidelines to create a national framework. In Australia, Finland and Ireland, the frameworks are generally broad, to ensure the micro-credential definitions and terminology can be applied to different types of providers and target groups.

In Australia, the National Microcredential Framework was launched in March 2022 to provide guidance on a national definition of micro-credentials in Australia. The framework followed extensive consultation with more than 120 stakeholders across higher education, VET, industry and government (Australian Government - Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021[30]). Following the findings of the consultation, the National Microcredentials Framework was designed to respond to evidence that the absence of common standards was hindering the growth of short-form learning. Although the framework is not binding, it aims to provide policy direction to harmonise the development and delivery of micro-credentials by outlining minimum standards, critical information requirements and consistent principles. The framework applies to all publicly supported micro-credentials in Australia, regardless of education and training sector and provider-type. It provides a nationally consistent reference point for providers, employers and learners (Australian Government - Department of Education, 2023[31]).

At its core, the National Microcredentials Framework offers a clear definition – a micro-credential is “a certification of assessed learning or competency, with a minimum volume of learning of one hour and less than an AQF award qualification” (Australian Government - Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021[30]). This definition is supported by four unifying principles: micro-credentials should be outcome‑based, responsive to industry needs, tailored to support lifelong learning, and transparent and accessible (Australian Government - Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021[30]). To promote portability and informed choice, the framework also specifies critical information requirements (e.g. learning outcomes, volume of learning, assessment type, industry or credit recognition) that every micro-credential should disclose, alongside minimum standards for listing on the national marketplace (Australian Government - Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021[30]). Together, these elements aim to improve coherence while preserving the flexibility that makes micro-credentials attractive to diverse learners and providers.

Finland, on the other hand, currently operates with two definitions of micro-credentials. In the higher education pilot, micro-credentials are separate from full-time degrees and providers have the freedom to set the content of the micro-credential courses without the constraint of existing education programmes, however, the draft framework does not rule out the possibility of micro-credentials being defined as parts of full degrees. In VET, “micro-credentials” (short form learning, not formally defined as micro-credentials) are defined as modules of full qualifications and therefore their content is partially pre‑determined by existing education programmes. However; VET providers can offer micro-credentials by combining learning outcomes in qualifications with learning outcomes based on local skill requirements, which are designed by VET providers in collaboration with local employers. There is no new legislation proposed for micro-credentials, and the Ministry of Education and Culture is operating with two distinct definitions and legislative frameworks for micro-credentials.

Finland has opted to pilot a framework for the higher education sector specifically and these providers are the main focus of the draft framework, but other types of providers could in theory offer micro-credentials, including private companies, industry or professional associations, and non-profit organisations. The draft framework puts the volume of micro-credentials at between 1 and 59 ECTS (60 ECTS are equivalent to one full year of study, or around 1 680 hours of study) (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2023[16]). However, only higher education institutions were selected for the pilot. Under the framework, Finnish education and training providers have a high degree of institutional autonomy to determine the fields of study and level of education of the micro-credentials, and topic and contents of micro-credentials are based on local and national labour-market needs. The framework emphasises that the micro-credentials must meet labour-market needs and be linked to research, development and innovation. The practical implication of this is that the content of micro-credentials needs to be current and modifiable, in often case requiring providers to create new training content.

In an alternative approach, Ireland has implemented two sector-specific frameworks for micro-credentials, that cover, respectively, Education and Training boards (further education and training sector) and universities (higher education sector). The MicroCreds Initiative in higher education defines micro-credentials in the higher education sector as small and focussed courses designed to meet the needs of learners and the labour market. Micro-credentials should be at levels 6‑9 of Ireland’s National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) (equivalent to ISCED (International Standard Classification of Education) levels 5‑7) and have a value of 1‑30 ECTS (European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System) credits (between 25 and 900 hours of learning). They are quality-assured and can be stacked towards a larger award (Irish Universities Association, 2021[32]). SOLAS, the Irish funding agency for further education and training sector (FET), uses the term “micro-qualifications” to refer to short, stackable, and accredited qualifications at NFQ levels 4‑6. They are typically small qualifications of up to 50 hours of learning, which are stackable into Special Purpose awards. They are developed in partnership with industry and delivered locally by Education and Training Boards (ETBs) through the Skills to Advance initiative (SOLAS, 2024[33]). As such, the frameworks in Ireland are not only sector-specific but also apply to only a selection of provider types within those sectors, which are the ETBs in the FET sector and “traditional” universities (IUA universities) in the higher education sector, excluding for instance technological universities and private non-formal training providers. These examples show that beyond choosing how to define micro-credentials (legal route or through frameworks) micro‑credentials can also be defined by sector, by type of provider, and by type of provider within the sector.

Box 2.1. Defining micro-credentials: Further international examples

The legislative route: New Zealand

Similarly to Estonia, micro-credentials are defined within the legislative framework through the amendments made to the Education and Training Act in 2022. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) has issued guidelines for micro-credentials, describing them as small stand-alone awards with defined learning outcomes. These credentials recognise learners’ skills and meet the needs of employers and industry. Micro-credentials are part of the New Zealand Qualifications and Credentials Framework (NZQCF) and can be offered at any level of the NZQCF. To be included in the NZQCF, micro-credentials must:

• not be larger than 40 credits (equivalent to 400 hours of learning),

• have an assessment component,

• be delivered by an accredited provider, and

• have been developed based on demonstrated demand.

These criteria, embedded in the regulatory framework, provide a national understanding of micro-credentials. As in the case of Estonia, compliance with these criteria is necessary for the inclusion in the NZQA Register, which serves as a national recognition of micro-credential courses.

The industry route: The Netherlands

The development of the Dutch framework for micro-credentials has been led by educational and training providers through the “Acceleration Plan” and its successor, the “Npuls” programme. Through the micro-credential pilot in higher education, education and training institutions collaboratively developed a framework for the pilot. The aim of the framework was to address the lack of new types of learning provisions for the purpose of job-related lifelong learning. To maintain flexibility in provision, the framework only covers fundamental elements of micro-credentials, such as the learning volume being 3‑30 ECTS credits (around 75‑900 hours) and adherence to the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area (ESG). Other elements, such as employer involvement and quality assurance being the responsibility of the providers themselves. Npuls piloted micro-credentials in both higher education and the VET sector until the end of 2025, and are building further on micro-credentials across further education, higher professional education and university education in 2026.

Source: NZQA (2024[34]), Guidelines for micro-credential listing, approval and accreditation, https://www2.nzqa.govt.nz/tertiary/approval-accreditation-and-registration/micro-credentials/guidelines/; Npuls (2023[35]), Continuing to build on micro-credentials in higher education and research universities, https://npuls.nl/en/microcredentials-in-higher-education-and-research-universities/.

2.2.2. Building trust: Quality assurance mechanisms

Ensuring quality is critical for gaining trust of learners, employers and education systems. Quality assurance serves as a foundational mechanism for protecting learners from sub-par provision and for assuring employers that micro-credentials certificates represent valid and reliable skills and knowledge. The proliferation of providers – including public institutions to private entities – increases the need for robust quality assurance frameworks, as it becomes even harder for students and employers to make judgements about the quality of individual operators and the qualifications they provide. Traditional quality assurance systems in higher education and vocational education and training, often designed for full-length qualifications, struggle to accommodate the online, hybrid and modular nature of micro-credentials. When implementing a national, harmonised micro-credential system, countries typically need to consider how to update or adapt their external quality assurance systems to maintain rigour but permit responsiveness.

Most jurisdictions are adapting existing systems of quality assurance to cover – or simply to permit – micro-credentials rather than establishing standalone mechanisms. However, challenges persist, particularly in evaluating non-formal, industry-aligned, and rapidly updated learning experiences.

A central design choice for policymakers is whether to focus quality assurance efforts at the institutional level (assessing the provider’s overall systems and capabilities) or at the programme level (reviewing each micro-credential individually). Both approaches carry distinct benefits and trade‑offs, particularly in the light of the need for flexibility, innovation and trust in emerging credential ecosystems (OECD, 2023[7]).

Institutional-level quality assurance focusses on an organisation’s internal processes, governance, and capacity to self-monitor and assure the quality of all its educational offerings, including micro-credentials. Such quality assurance measures are more prevalent in education and training sectors where there are robust quality assurance mechanisms, such as in higher education. For instance, the micro-credential pilot in Finland relies on the existing quality assurance mechanisms in higher education institutions and does not prescribe additional controls beyond what is laid forth in the Law on Universities, Law on Universities of Applied Sciences, JOTPA Law and Law on Study Registers (Ministry of Education and Culture, 2023[16]). The draft framework allows for other non-higher education institutions to provide micro-credentials, but the pilot is only operational among providers of formal education and training in higher education (universities and universities of applied sciences). If providers other than higher education institutions were to use the framework, additional quality assurance mechanisms would have to be implemented for providers that do not have the same institutional quality assurance process as traditional universities.

Leveraging existing institutional quality assurance mechanisms has several benefits. It facilitates rapid expansion and frequent updates of micro-credentials without overburdening quality assurance agencies, and by focussing on systems instead of individual offerings, it can reduce bureaucratic delays in programme approval. However, it relies heavily on the maturity of the quality assurance system and may be unsuitable for private or newer providers with untested systems that still manage to provide relevant and high-quality training. Further, as many micro-credential systems are geared towards bridging the skills gaps in the labour market, the quality assurance systems of higher education institutions might not be suitable for evaluating the relevance and “quality” of micro-credentials, as most degree programmes have a broader purpose and are not directly linked to specific labour-market shortages and generally higher education institutions lack the institutional experience to design short, workforce‑targeted courses.

The alternative to institution or provider-level quality assurance and accreditation is to adopt a programme‑level quality assurance that focusses on the design, content, learning outcomes and relevance of individual micro-credential programmes. Such mechanisms are often used to approve or accredit courses offered by private providers, non-university institutions or new entrants, and used to approve or accredit specific credentials before market entry. Focusing on the micro-credential programmes rather than the providers enables detailed scrutiny of relevance of specific courses, assessment methods, and outcomes and can be a way to control the labour-market relevance of micro-credentials. It can help build trust among learners and employers, especially in early-stage micro-credential ecosystems. However, programme‑level quality assurance is inherently resource‑intensive and time‑consuming, especially for fast-changing credentials. This may hinder agility and responsiveness to labour market needs.

Box 2.2. Programme‑level assurance: Further international examples

The Slovak Republic

The Slovak Republic offers a noteworthy example of a country expanding beyond traditional institutional accreditation by implementing a system for accrediting non-formal qualifications, including short learning programmes that can be considered micro-credentials. Under this framework, providers have the option to seek accreditation for an entire programme or on a module‑by-module basis. To apply for accreditation, providers are encouraged to adhere to the qualification standards outlined in the Slovak National Qualifications Framework and must submit specific documentation as part of the certification process. Programmes that are accredited and quality assured are then listed in a publicly accessible register of accredited programmes.

Source: Cedefop (2023[36]), Microcredentials for labour-market education and training – Microcredentials and evolving qualifications systems, https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/566352.

Quality assurance across education and training sectors

One of the main challenges in harmonising a micro-credential system across sectors is that different education and training sectors can have different standards and training delivery which are perceived as being of different quality. Quality assessment mechanisms can potentially help to create common standards across different forms of training in different sectors and create trust in a wider system for micro-credentials. How to create cohesive quality assessment procedure for different types of providers in different types of sectors depends on the existing quality assurance framework. Many OECD countries are adopting a hybrid quality assurance model that combines provider- and programme‑level quality assurance, depending on the type of provider.

In Ireland, a national regulatory body, Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI), oversees the quality of both universities and non-university providers. Ireland’s traditional and technological universities are granted credential-awarding powers, meaning they are responsible for the internal quality assurance of their own micro-credentials. QQI does not directly review these university-level programmes, focussing instead on institutional-level quality assurance for these autonomous bodies (OECD, 2023[7]). This means that the MicroCreds initiative led by the Irish Universities Association falls outside the scope of QQI’s direct oversight and follows institutional quality assurance processes within each university (which are, in turn, reviewed by the QQI). However, for non-university and private providers, QQI maintains a programme‑level quality assurance process. This includes reviewing smaller types of qualifications like minor awards, special purpose awards, and supplemental awards (QQI, 2021[37]). Universities can opt into having their micro-credentials reviewed for an award programme if that micro-credential constituted a module of an existing qualification, but this is not mandatory (QQI, 2021[22]). In order to facilitate programme‑level quality assurance, QQI has adapted existing processes to fit the needs of micro-credentials. This is done by retaining core principles and validation criteria, but introducing simplified validation templates and replacing traditional on-site reviews with remote desk-audit evaluations conducted by independent subject-matter experts. The micro-qualifications in the FET sector are considered minor awards that can be stacked into special purpose awards, and therefore fall under the programme‑level quality assurance by the QQI (SOLAS, 2024[33]). The micro-qualifications are co-designed by lead ETBs in conjunction with enterprise and in-line with quality assurance requirements of QQI. Once a micro-qualification has been approved by QQI, the ETB that have led the development of the micro-qualifications can start offering the course, and the course also becomes available subsequently for other ETBs to offer – ensuring alignment of offering and quality across different ETBs in the FET sector.

In Estonia, the Estonian Quality Agency for Education (HAKA) is responsible for overseeing quality assessments for both formal and non-formal education institutions. For providers in higher education, HAKA employs standards aligned with the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) principles (HAKA, n.d.[38]). Estonia is one of the few countries that has established a clear and formalised process to include non-formal providers in the national system for micro-qualifications. This is enabled through a multi-tiered quality assurance system for micro-credentials, with differentiated procedures for formal and non-formal education providers. All institutions must register their micro-credential programmes in the Estonian Education Information System, preceded by a formal compliance check by the Ministry of Education and Research.

For higher education and vocational education institutions, eligibility to offer micro-credentials depends on existing authorisation to deliver programmes in the relevant study field. Their quality is safeguarded through the regular external quality assessment processes already in place for those sectors (HAKA, n.d.[38]; Cirlan, 2023[12]). Implementing a quality assurance system that includes non-formal providers required the Estonian authorities to investigate the practical implications of the system’s design (Box 2.3).

Non-formal education providers, which account for approximately 80% of Estonia’s continuing education offer, follow a separate external quality assurance (EQA) process. They must undergo a provider-level quality assessment specific to the study programme group in which they intend to offer micro-credentials. This assessment evaluates four core dimensions: the design and development of study programmes, teaching and learning practices, qualifications of teaching staff, and institutional resources (Cirlan, 2023[12]). The review cycle is set at a minimum of once every five years. Following a successful evaluation, the provider is authorised to deliver micro-credentials in the approved study field, and these credentials are then formally listed in the national register. Listing in the Education Information System also enables providers to access public funding for their programmes (Cirlan, 2023[12]; HAKA, n.d.[38]).

Box 2.3. Piloting quality assurance for non-formal providers in Estonia

In order to facilitate an implementation of the national framework, between 2019 and 2022, HAKA tested a custom external quality assurance (EQA) model for micro-qualifications. Initial reviews at the institutional level showed significant variation in quality within the same provider. Around half of the assessed non-formal institutions failed to meet minimum standards across all areas. Based on these findings, HAKA concluded that institution-based quality assessment wasn’t effective for smaller, specialised providers. After consulting with stakeholders, HAKA replaced the institutional-level EQF with a field-specific approach that accredits providers by study programme group, using ISCED-F subject-field codes as the reference. Under this new system, non-formal providers – such as private companies, NGOs, and professional bodies – must pass this study filed-level review before they can offer micro-qualifications worth 5 to 30 ECTS. Universities and VET colleges, by contrast, are automatically eligible through their regular EQA processes (OECD, 2023[7]; ENQA, 2023[39]).

The quality assurance pilot, which had involved about 120 non-formal training organisations by mid‑2022, introduced a simplified review process lasting two months. Providers begin by submitting a self-evaluation. Then, a panel of two to four experts reviews a sample of courses, assessing them across four areas: curriculum, teaching and learning, staff, and resources. Based on this, HAKA can grant full five‑year accreditation, conditional accreditation, or reject the application. Once accredited, each micro-qualification must be listed in the Estonian Education Information System (EHIS) after a compliance check by the Ministry of Education and Research. Only those programmes registered in EHIS are eligible for public or European Social Fund (ESF) support and the learner tax rebate (ENQA, 2023[39]).

The two‑track systems of Estonia and Ireland combine both institutional quality assurance for autonomous/formal providers of micro-credentials and study field- and programme‑level quality assurance for non-university/non-formal providers that are guaranteed by regulatory bodies. This model balances regulatory assurance and provider autonomy, enabling providers with existing approval of quality assurance to design and implement micro-credentials quickly, while other providers, such as non-formal providers and those in the FET sector, are not excluded and can be a part of the micro-credential system through a programme‑level quality assurance process.

Box 2.4. Quality assessment of non-formal providers of training

There are many reasons behind the lack of a standardised approach to the quality assurance of non-formal adult learning. These include the high costs of implementing quality assurance mechanisms, the reluctance of non-formal training providers to be subject to more bureaucracy, the fragmentation of responsibilities regarding adult learning policies across different government departments and levels or the lack of monitoring data. Despite these challenges, some countries and some smaller within-country initiatives have succeeded in implementing a quality assurance framework for non-formal adult training. A review of quality assurance practices in non-formal adult learning identified three main approaches to adult learning:

• The regulatory approach, which imposes minimum requirements that providers must satisfy to be allowed to operate or to be eligible to receive public funds. Systems that use a regulatory approach tend to use quality certificates or labels. These quality labels are often used to determine the eligibility of the training provider to receive public funds, as the minimum requirements imposed by the quality certification guarantees a standard level of quality of training services.

• The advisory approach, which uses guidelines and provides examples of good practices to incentivise and guide training providers in pursuing quality improvement activities. On the other hand, systems that use an advisory approach generally use self-assessments. These self-assessments typically include a quality improvement cycle through which training providers must continuously define quality improvement actions.

• The organic approach, which allows providers to pursue their own quality improvement activities based on their quality needs

Austria

Ö-Cert (Austria) is a nationwide quality label for adult education providers that relies on training providers having one of 12 Ö-Cert-approved Quality Management Systems or Quality Assurance Procedures. Since it is based on training providers holding an existing quality certification from a trusted quality assessment institution, it can be considered an “umbrella label”. The purpose of the Ö-Cert assurance label to streamline the approval process for funding by the Federal Ministry of Education.

The Label was developed in 2011 by the Federal Ministry of Education and the nine Austrian provinces in co‑operation with relevant stakeholders of adult education, as the Conference of Adult Education Organisations, and it is regulated by law. Between 2012 and 2022, over 550 providers (1 373 including branches) were accredited. Holding the Ö-Cert quality label is a requirement for Austrian training institutions to receive public funds.

Given the requirement that training providers must have one of 12 Quality Assurance Procedures in place, this system is very lean, including only 4 additional criteria to hold an Ö-Cert approved quality certification. These include general requirements and requirements concerning the organisation of the provider, the offers of the provider, principles of ethics and democracy, and quality-related requirements, which refer to having one of the 12 Quality Assurance Procedures in place.

The operation of the system relies heavily on the quality certification that the Ö-Cert award is based on. While there is an initial external assessment of the training provider’s application to Ö-Cert, this assessment by Ö-Cert does not include an on-site audit. However, the quality certification on which the Ö-Cert award is based on must include an on-site audit. Similarly, the validity period of the Ö-Cert quality label is linked to the validity period of the quality certification in which the Ö-Cert award is based on, which must be less than 4 years.

This reliance on an external quality label makes it possible to keep the cost of operations low, as the Ö-Cert office only employs 3 people as of March 2023 who perform the initial review the applications to Ö-Cert and manage the central organisation of the label. An accreditation group, formed by 5 experts, meets 5 to 7 times a year to decide on the award of the Ö-Cert label.

Finally, the steering group, which includes representatives of the 9 federal states and the Ministry of Education, makes the strategic decisions related to the label, such as whether to accept a new quality certification to award the Ö-Cert label. This group meets twice per year.

Switzerland

EduQua (Switzerland) is a quality label that ensures that Swiss providers of adult learning meet some minimum standards at the time of registering. It promotes the transparency and comparability of adult education for the benefit of participants and contributes to ensuring and developing the quality of training providers and their training programmes. While it is not compulsory, some of the Swiss cantons require providers to have the EduQua label to receive public funds. It is based on 8 quality areas, which include 19 criteria. As of March 2023, over 1 100 training providers were accredited with the EduQua quality label.

Six external certification bodies evaluate providers’ fulfilment of the EduQua requirements through an external assessment, which includes on-site visits. If awarded, the EduQua certificate is valid for three years, during which training providers are audited annually. If a training provider is found not to comply the EduQua requirements in one of the audits, the EduQua certificate may be (in extreme cases) withdrawn. Providers must wait for three years to re‑acquire the certificate. The costs for a procedure for smaller providers is CHF 4 950 for three years and for larger providers it is according to the offer of the certification body.

In addition to evaluating providers’ fulfilment of requirements and undertaking on-site audits, the external certification bodies also handle complaints and support providers in meeting the quality requirements. In order to become a certification body of the EduQua label, organisations must be accredited by the Swiss Accreditation Service (SAS). SAS not only assesses the competence of the certification bodies and their personnel for the correct performance of certifications (i.e. compliance with the rules of procedure), it also ensures that the procedures of certification bodies remain satisfactory over time. Relying on external bodies for the certification procedure allows EduQua to have only a small team of permanent employees directly employed in their office, whose role is to co‑ordinate and ensure a smooth running of the organisation.

An Advisory Group identifies the quality criteria behind the label. This Group was originally chaired by the State Secretary and composed of an equal number of representatives from the state and from the different cantons as well as important players in the continuing education landscape, including public and private training providers with various sizes. Only after the label had been in place for 18 years and well established, the State Secretary for Economic Affairs left the partnership. Today it is managed by a well-respected main actor, the Swiss Federation for Adult Learning, SVEB which is also the sole sponsor since 2018.

The EduQua office is responsible for ensuring as smooth operation of the system, maintaining a central register of certified educational institutions, co‑ordinating the EduQua advisory group, for public relations and the positioning of EduQua, spreading information and providing advice for interested parties. They also maintain the website (www.eduqua.ch/) (alice.ch), handle complaints and monitor the effects of EduQua. They also promote the exchange between certification bodies, between auditors and providers and lead the project management for the revision of the system.

While the main goal of the EduQua label is to ensure the quality of the CVET offers, EduQua it is a hybrid standard. It reviews both, the quality of the management system and of educational offers and learning services.

In 2017, 445 training providers assessed the EduQua label. Most providers agreed that EduQua allows them to recognise potential for improvement and improves the quality of the CVET offer. Most training providers obtain EduQua as it is required by the relevant contracting authority. While providers of all sizes believe that EduQua criteria are suitable, criteria seem particularly suitable for medium-sized training providers. In fact, some small providers struggle to meet some of the criteria.

Source: OECD (2021[40]), Improving the Quality of Non-Formal Adult Learning: Learning from European Best Practices on Quality Assurance, https://doi.org/10.1787/f1b450e1-en; OECD (2024[41]), Mapping Quality Assurance Indicators for Non-formal Adult Learning, https://doi.org/10.1787/1ce40dfa-en.

2.2.3. Integrating micro-credentials in lifelong learning systems: Stackability and portability

Stackability and portability are foundational to unlocking the full potential of micro-credentials within education and labour-market system. Stackability refers to the ability of learners to combine multiple micro-credentials into larger qualifications or learning pathways. Portability related to the recognition of those credentials across education and training institutions, sectors, or even national borders. Both are essential to promoting lifelong learning, supporting career transitions, and ensuring that micro-credentials serve as credible, portable evidence of skills and competencies.

National qualification frameworks: Enabling stackability and portability

One way to facilitate stackability and portability is to link micro-credentials to a common reference framework, such as National Qualifications Frameworks (NQF). Common reference frameworks use standardised descriptors, including learning outcomes, workload and assessment methods. Systems that align micro-credentials with such frameworks can make it easier for both academic institutions and employers to interpret and recognise their value, and for the learner to carve out their personalised career and training pathway (Box 2.5).

In Ireland, micro-qualifications in the FET sector are aligned to the Irish National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) and awards are available at Level 4, 5 and 6 of the NFQ. The micro-qualifications are recognised as NFQ awards, which enables learners to complete multiple micro-qualification courses from different ETB providers that together make up a special purpose award, ensuring both stackability of micro-qualifications and portability between providers in the FET sector. The Irish MicroCred initiative in the higher education sector also references the NFQ, and micro-credentials are offered at NFQ Levels 6 to 9. However, not all of these micro-credentials are officially part of the NFQ and some do not lead to standalone qualifications (major, minor, special purpose or supplemental awards) under QQI’s formal credentialing framework, but are rather issued with ECTS credits by the institution (Quality and Qualifications Ireland, 2025[42]). In essence, this hinders the automatic stackability and portability of micro-credentials in the Irish higher education sector. This means that the two‑sector approach to micro-credentials in Ireland is also resulting in differences in the stackability and portability of micro-credentials in those two systems.

The Australian National Microcredentials Framework recommends that providers include information on stackability when listing their programmes on the MicroCred Seeker platform, however, this is not mandatory as automatic stackability and portability are not embedded in the framework. The National Microcredentials Framework is non-regulatory by design, meaning that rather than inserting micro-credentials into the Australian Qualifications Framework, policymakers opted for a minimalist guidance model to safeguard innovation and avoid unnecessary compliance burdens (Australian Government - Department of Education, Skills and Employment, 2021[30]). A 2019 review of the AQF highlighted that fixing micro-credentials to qualification levels could slow time‑to-market, add costs for providers and confuse learners. Stakeholders therefore preferred to keep them outside the AQF while still signalling level or mastery where relevant (OECD, 2023[7]). Though not directly embedded in the AQF, all publicly funded micro-credentials in higher education must meet specific quality criteria – notably, each course must be aligned to an accredited higher education award (as defined in the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency Act 2011). This alignment ensures that the micro-credentials have a clear place in the higher education ecosystem, for example serving as modules that could potentially be recognised for credit in a degree programme, and uphold academic standards.

Box 2.5. Mapping micro-credentials against National Qualifications Frameworks

Croatia

In Croatia, the national methodology for micro-credentials requires micro-credentials courses to be mapped against the Croatian National Qualification Framework (CROQF). The CROQF was introduced in 2013 as a tool to define the connection of Croatian qualification levels of the European Qualifications Framework and the Qualifications Framework of the European Higher Education Area. The CROQF, and the adjoining CROQF Act, regulate the system of qualifications at all levels in the country through qualification standards based on learning outcomes and following the needs of the labour market, individuals and the society. The CROQF provides a description of different types of qualification (partial and full), their volumes, learning outcomes and allocation within qualification levels.

The methodology on micro-credential stipulates that the content and volume of micro-credentials are determined by the learning outcomes and qualification standards in the CROQF. The sets of learning outcomes acquired in micro-qualification programmes can be taken from both full and partial qualifications and can be combined into smaller micro-qualification programmes, according to the needs of the labour market. Anchoring micro-qualifications in a national qualification framework that includes descriptions of learning outcomes allows for easier transfer of credits between providers and stacking of micro-credentials into partial or full qualifications.

Source: Croatian Agency for VET and Adult Education (2022[43]), Metodologija za izradu programa obrazovanja odraslih za stjecanje mikrokvalifikacija, djelomičnih kvalifikacija i cjelovitih kvalifikacija financiranih putem vaučera I drugih izvora financiranja [Methodology for developing adult education programmes, for acquiring micro-qualifications, partial qualifications and full qualifications financed through vouchers and other sources of financing], https://www.asoo.hr/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Metodologija_pdf.pdf.

Recognition of prior learning: A tool for stackability and portability

In the absence of automatic stackability and portability, recognition of prior learning (RPL) plays a vital role in enabling a wider recognition of micro-credentials. RPL allows learners to receive formal credit for competencies gained through non-formal or informal learning, including micro-credentials. When micro-credential systems are embedded within a national framework, RPL can help validate micro-credentials as legitimate evidence of leaning, facilitating their use in gaining entry into or exemptions from parts of longer programmes. The micro-credential systems in Australia, Estonia and Finland are all rooted in national frameworks, and despite not ensuring automatic portability and stackability, this does enable institutions to easily carry out RPL and recognise micro-credentials from other providers and other sectors.

Estonia’s micro-credential system is designed to support flexible learning and facilitate access to recognised, skills-based qualifications, and stackability and portability of micro-credentials is made possible both through the alignment with the NQF and through RPL. Amendments to the Adult Education Act established the position of micro-qualifications within the national qualifications system. Within this framework, recognition is based on clearly defined learning outcomes, which must align with a level of the Estonian Qualifications Framework or a relevant professional standard. Each training programme leading to a micro-qualification must comply with the national continuing training standard. This includes clear entry and completion criteria, defined learning outcomes, and transparent assessment methods (European Commission, 2024[44]).

Learners in Estonia may obtain a micro-qualification through multiple routes: formal education, in-service training, professional examinations, or independent study validated through the national system for the validation of non-formal and informal learning (VNIL, the name given to recognition of prior learning in Estonia). However, only higher education institutions and vocational education institutions are authorised to use VNIL for micro-qualifications, with private in-service training providers excluded from using this pathway (European Commission, 2024[44]).

According to the Estonian Ministry of Education, recognition of prior learning is already widely used in HE and enables the transfer of micro-qualifications between universities, although this process still depends on individual institutional decisions and lacks full automaticity. Currently, most components of a higher education programme can be recognised through VNIL, except final examinations and bachelor’s and master’s theses.

The Ministry of Education anticipates that the new quality assurance system for non-formal providers will help make the recognition of micro-credentials smoother and more consistent across sectors. The ministry also highlighted that micro-qualifications are expected to offset the overuse of full degree programmes by providing a more modular and targeted approach to learning. As part of the ongoing reforms, Estonia aims to enable learners to transfer micro-qualifications from non-formal education into formal qualification pathways using VNIL mechanisms. This would allow individuals to build up towards a full qualification based on accumulated learning outcomes.

While micro-qualifications are not always designed to stack towards full degrees, they can form part of broader qualification pathways when integrated into formal programmes. To preserve the coherence of the system, private providers must enter into formal agreements with higher education institutions if they wish to offer components of formal programmes as micro-qualifications. Without such agreements, their training can still be validated and quality assured but cannot contribute to a full qualification (European Commission, 2024[44]).

Portfolios of learning: An alternative to stackability

Micro-credentials can also be integrated into broader adult learning systems through national portfolio systems for education and training. Portfolios and digital certification platforms can play a vital role in enhancing the visibility, usability and value of micro-credentials. As learners accumulate short, modular learning across various providers and sectors, portfolios serve as a consolidated record of their skills, competencies and achievements. This is especially useful in systems where micro-credentials are not part of a national qualifications framework, where stackability is still evolving, or where there are strong efforts to harmonise micro-credentials across education and training sectors. Portfolios enable learners to present a structured and standardised overview of their learning journey, combining formal, non-formal and informal (through RPL) learning into a digital portfolio of skills. This can have great value in matching workers and employers based on skills needs, and for educational institutions to evaluate further recognition for full qualifications.

Digital certification platforms add another layer of transparency and trust by enabling the secure issuance, storage and sharing of verified credentials. In some countries, such platforms are integrated with national qualification registers, allowing learners and providers to trace learning outcomes and credit values across different levels and sectors.

Box 2.6. Portfolio method in adult learning and micro-credentials

Denmark

Denmark has a well-established tradition of modularised learning across its adult education system. Learners have the flexibility to combine modules from various programmes across different types of education providers, including general, vocational and higher education institutions. In the sub-system of general adult education, these modules can be stacked to form a full qualification, which can provide access to further education. In other parts of the system, learners can build personalised portfolios of skills by combining these modules, even if they do not lead to a full, stackable qualification.

This high level of modular flexibility is supported by robust certification practices. Participation in each module is officially documented, both in paper and digital formats, and linked to an individual’s unique civic personal number. This ensures a comprehensive and accessible record of a learner’s education and training history, which can be accessed by both the learner and education providers. Moreover, these modular certificates are integrated into the Danish Qualifications Framework, reinforcing their formal recognition and portability.

The Netherlands

In the Netherlands, the edubadge pilot programme for tertiary education awards students a secure, electronically issued digital certification of skill. The programme is run by SURF, a co‑operative association of Dutch educational and research institutions, and the agency co‑ordinating the Dutch Microcredentials pilot. It lists a range of programmes using the edubadges specification, including micro-credentials, and lists study load, level, language of instruction and learning outcomes. Edubadges are digital certificates of a skill or competence awarded by a verified issuing organisation, such as a university. All tertiary and vocational education institutions in the Netherlands can register on the edubadges platform to develop and award their own digital badges for micro-credentials. Both formal accredited education and non-formal or non-traditional learning – such as short courses, micro-credentials, internships or community service projects – can be certified by an edubadge. External parties (e.g. employers) can view the shared edubadges and verify their authenticity.

Edubadge is being trialled in the micro-credential pilots in higher education and VET carried out by Npuls. Because each edubadge is linked to an institution and can’t be reproduced or manipulated, the authenticity of a learner’s credentials can be easily verified by employers, making it easier for learners to communicate their skills and knowledge to the labour market in a handy digital portfolio.

Portugal

In Portugal, the Qualifica Passport is a personal and electronic instrument that contains the record of qualifications and skills acquired throughout an adult’s life, which are referenced to the NCQ. It may also include vocational training not included in the NCQ, upon successful completion. It allows the holder to identify areas where they can acquire and/or refine competences that improve their qualification pathway, as well as offering employers a more immediate evaluation of a candidate’s suitability for a specific job. The Passport can be changed, updated and printed at any time, becoming an instrument that accompanies the adult in all phases of his/her active life.

Within the national Pact for Digital Skills, launched in December 2025, it is envisaged the development of a digital portfolio of citizens’ educational and training history, integrated into the gov.pt app, that securely and interoperable consolidates the record of qualifications, micro-credentials, and educational and training paths acquired throughout an individual’s life.

Source: Cedefop (2015[45]), The role of modularisation and unitisation in vocational education and training, http://dx.doi.org/10.2801/38475;

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;

SURF (n.d.[46]), edubadges: Issuing digital certificates to learners, https://www.surf.nl/en/services/educational-logistics/edubadges;

Republic of Portugal (n.d.[47]), Passaporte Qualifica [Passport Qualifies]; https://www.passaportequalifica.gov.pt/cicLogin.xhtml.

Notes

← 1.  A large share of the funding – EUR 44 million – is dedicated to in-service training that supports both professional and general skill development. This includes longer and more comprehensive micro-qualification programmes designed to help working adults adapt to labour market changes or pursue career transitions. Training content is guided by national priorities and labour market intelligence such as OSKA forecasts and sectoral studies. The measure also supports improvements in quality assurance, the use of digital certificates, recognition of prior learning, and public engagement in lifelong learning (Republic of Estonia: Ministry of Education and Research, 2023[13]).

← 2.  In Ireland, further education and training, FET, refers to all education and training that happens post-Leaving Certificate but falls outside the higher education system (universities and institutes of technology). FET includes a wide range of learning options, including Post-Leaving Certificate courses, apprenticeship and traineeships, skills development programmes for employees and employers, adult literacy and basic education, and vocational and upskilling programmes for the unemployed or those changing careers.