[LINK] Microcredentials

Wed Mar 30 16:57:07 AEDT 2022

Roger writes,

>    So how does the 'micro-credential' world address the need for
>    'foundations', 'coherence' and 'cumulative knowledge'?

All essential, also central to a quality education are SKILLS .

I think popular microcredentials will be action-man-gal skill demonstrations.

For mine, I’d like a microcredential course in welding. I want to cut and bond steel.

I want to watch  well-resourced on-line accredited videos  explaining and showing everything.

Do I need the weight of Socraties on my back .. to help me learn to weld?

> The announcement's not about learning, or teaching .. it's just about a 'credential'.

No, it’s about learning to weld.

Wanting a genuine, qualified skill .. welding, coding, whatevering.

> It says nothing about the characteristics of people intended to enter
> the process, nor even that the applicant for credential certification
> might need to think about what those characteristics are, or even maybe
> specify them. If I'm wrong, please point me to what I've missed. The whole
> thing smacks of the bureaucracy-driven vacuousness that's afflicted the ed
> sector for the last 20 years.

Roger, just think .. microcredentials ....  the quickest way to learn

Cheers mate
Stephen
___________________

On 30/3/22 2:27 pm, Stephen Loosley wrote:
> Roger writes,
>
>
>
>> I think the micro-credential notion is just about the silliest idea
>
>> I've heard in 55 years of involvement with post-secondary ed.
>
> Now, no longer being involved in higher education, one can understand
> reticence from those of us that still are.
>
>
>
> However one can also well understand, and welcome, the apparently
> real-world points that David Braue notes in
>
> his contribution to the Australian Computer Society “Education Age” (and
> whom have developed microcredentials extensively)  when he writes the
> item entitled,  “Microcredentials standardised at last .. The quickest
> way to upskill, do they pose a threat to universities?”
>
>
>
> https://ia.acs.org.au/article/2022/microcredentials-standardised-at-last.html
>
>
>
> (Quote)  “Australia’s “massively fragmented and tough” credentialing
> innovation sector has long kept it lagging behind regional innovators
> like Singapore, Malaysia and the EU, warned Dr Katy McDevitt, a former
> Deakin University microcredential designer who is now chief learning
> officer at multinational microcredentials provider HEX – which has
> affiliations with 37 universities and has worked with over 5,000 students.
>
>
>
> The NMF “is a major practical contribution towards making it simpler for
> education providers to get traction in designing meaningful
> credentials,” McDevitt said, warning that “tech-powered transformations
> are happening at a phenomenal pace.”
>
>
>
> “The longer we spend defining the basics of a form of education
> technology that has now existed for the best part of a decade, the more
> out of step we become with the real and fast emerging future needs of
> the economy.”
>
>
>
> Momentum for microcredentials has been building in recent years as
> increasing demand for current IT and other skills challenges
> universities that require years of commitment to complete broad degrees
> whose specific deliverables are often hard for employers to evaluate.
>
>
>
> In 2019, a review of the AQF warned that existing “highly generic”
> credentials were unsuitable for the modern workforce and relied on
> outcome statements that were “not meaningful” in a world characterised
> by “a constant state of disruption and innovation.”
>
>
>
> Aiming to help workers better understand the skills they need to get IT
> jobs, organisations such as the Australian Computer Society (ACS) and
> OpenLearning have worked to establish standards for microcredentials –
> but the NMF aims to simplify the landscape by mapping these and other
> courses against common definitions.
>
>
>
> Standardising the currently disjointed market for microcredentials – and
> ensuring that certifications are universally recognised – could threaten
> the tertiary sector’s long-held control over formal knowledge
> acquisition, former educational director and consultant Paul Corcoran
> argued in a recent evaluation of the sector’s biggest challenges.
>
>
>
> “Current discussions around microcredentials sometimes have the feel of
> an answer in search of a question,” he said, noting that “the virtues of
> microcredentials are being extolled, but take-up is fragmented and
> stakeholders appear to have mixed views on the utility and quality of
> those credentials.”
>
>
>
> Microcredentials allow job seekers to demonstrate more specific skills
> than is possible using ‘macrocredentials’ such as university degrees,
> Corcoran notes in advocating for a standardised national framework – as
> well as allowing individuals to have their skills “recognised in a more
> timely manner than is possible with macrocredentials”.
>
> (End quote)
>
>
>
> Personally, I would love quality/approved microcredential courses in
> welding, sail-boat design and knitting 😊
>
>
>
> Anyway, here is what the government write regarding their framework
> initiative. (Nb points 6, 7 &8)
>
>
>
> https://www.dese.gov.au/higher-education-publications/resources/national-microcredentials-framework
>
>
>
> (Quote)
>
>
>
> Executive Summary:
>
>
>
> The education landscape is changing with growing demand for shorter-form
> courses that enable workers to rapidly upskill and encourage lifelong
> learning.
>
>
>
> Technological change coupled with rapid transformation brought about by
> COVID-19, have elevated the potential for microcredentials to rapidly
> upskill and reskill the workforce.
>
>
>
> Even so, the microcredentials ecosystem is disparate, lacking even a
> consistent definition across higher education, vocational education, and
> industry.
>
>
>
> A significant number of Federal and State Government projects are now
> underway to fund, trial, collate and credentialise microcredentials.
>
>
>
> These projects define and fund microcredentials differently, and without
> a clear framework, they risk embedding inconsistency into the future.
> Simultaneously, many providers have developed their own credit
> recognition or microcredential policies.
>
>
>
> Multiple reports have recommended the establishment of guidelines that
> microcredentials should follow, including the Australian Qualifications
> Framework Review 2019.
>
>
>
> A framework can help reduce complications for learners seeking to make a
> decision on what to learn, for recognising bodies or providers seeking
> to recognise a microcredential for credit, and for employers or
> professional bodies seeking to understand the learning outcomes and
> capabilities of employees.
>
>
>
> While a framework is unlikely to address all questions raised by
> interested parties, a National Microcredentials Framework can bring
> additional coherence to this ecosystem.
>
>
>
> It has been the product of broad consultation with over 120 individuals
> from approximately 70 organisations, an environment scan that included
> consideration of over 35 different definitions and multiple existing
> frameworks, and consensus-based discussion among a Microcredentials
> Working Group with recognised leaders from higher education, vocational
> education, and industry.
>
>
>
> The nature of this discussion is representative of the diversity of
> views on microcredentials. Consensus on key elements has been
> challenging, and the strong weight of opinion has been that any
> framework should err on the side of minimalism to protect the
> flexibility and dynamism of microcredentials.
>
>
>
> Announced in June 2020 by the Department of Education, Skills and
> Employment, the Microcredentials
>
> Marketplace will be a user-friendly, nationally-consistent platform that
> allows learners, employers and
>
> providers to compare short courses.
>
>
>
> Definition
>
>
>
> The framework defines microcredentials as a certification of assessed
> learning or competency, with a
>
> minimum volume of learning of one hour and less than an AQF award
> qualification, that is additional,
>
> alternate, complementary to or a component part of an AQF award
> qualification.
>
>
>
> Unifying principles
>
>
>
> This definition is supported by a number of unifying principles; that
> microcredentials should be:
>
>
>
> • Outcome-based.
>
> • Responsive to industry-need.
>
> • Tailored to support lifelong learning.
>
> • Transparent and accessible.
>
>
>
> Critical information requirements and minimum standards
>
>
>
> A number of critical information requirements are stipulated to
> encourage greater consistency and portability
>
> of all microcredentials. These requirements provide users with critical
> information about microcredentials,
>
> enabling them to be better understood as a unit of exchange. They are
> supported by a series of minimum
>
> standards for microcredentials that are anticipated to sit on the
> Marketplace.
>
>
>
> 1. Learning outcomes must be clearly stated.
>
>
>
> 2. When describing foundation or general capabilities, providers will
> consider the descriptors contained
>
> within the Australian Core Skills Framework. Note that additional
> capability taxonomies will be
>
> considered in a future version of this framework.
>
>
>
> 3. Microcredentials require assessment/s. This assessment/s must assess
> the attainment of learning
>
> outcomes. For transparency reasons, the type of assessment/ assessment
> method must be clearly
>
> stated.
>
>
>
> 4. Microcredentials are required to stipulate volume of learning and to
> have a minimum of one hour
>
> volume of learning and less than that of an AQF award qualification.
>
>
>
> 5. Microcredentials will consider signifying the mastery achieved by a
> microcredential, where the primary
>
> purpose of a microcredential is not credit-bearing. This can be a
> best-fit or estimate.
>
>
>
> 6. Where applicable, microcredentials will clearly stipulate
> industry-recognition, where the microcredential
>
> is recognised by a professional body, satisfies or aligns to an industry
> standard or professional
>
> development requirement, or constitutes recognition towards an industry
> or vendor certification.
>
>
>
> 7. Where applicable, microcredentials will clearly stipulate
> credit-recognition, where the microcredential is
>
> recognised by an education institution for the provision of specified or
> unspecified credit or advanced
>
> standing. This stipulation will outline the nature of the credit and the
> AQF level/s of the qualifications
>
> that the microcredential leads to (rather than mapping to the AQF level
> outcomes). Where the
>
> microcredential isrecognised for credit only when “stacked” with other
> microcredentials, thisshould be
>
> clearly stipulated.
>
>
>
> 8. Where an issuing authority has not applied a regulated standard (i.e.
> the standards and academic
>
> integrity processes applied to award courses or components within a
> training package) to a
>
> microcredential, they must provide a statement of assurance of quality -
> e.g. a profile of the provider/
>
> institution, a description of the quality assurance processes
> undertaken, and the process for review/
>
> updating the microcredential.
>
>
>
> It is hoped that the development and implementation of this framework in
> conjunction with the Marketplace
>
> will encourage greater cohesion in the design, development and delivery
> of microcredentials across both the
>
> Australian education system and broader industry.
>
>
>
> (End quote)
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
>
>

--
Roger Clarke                            mailto:Roger.Clarke at xamax.com.au
T: +61 2 6288 6916   http://www.xamax.com.au  http://www.rogerclarke.com

Xamax Consultancy Pty Ltd      78 Sidaway St, Chapman ACT 2611 AUSTRALIA

Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Law            University of N.S.W.
Visiting Professor in Computer Science    Australian National University
_______________________________________________
Link mailing list
Link at anu.edu.au
https://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link