Qualifications, the paper points out, play an important role in society. \u201cThey express what individuals know, understand and can do, and have a considerable influence on employment prospects and overall life chances.\u201d But this is not the whole story: \u201cqualifications \u2026 sit within a wider social, economic and historical context within which skills recognition takes place.\u201d The paper also states that: \u201cmicro-credentials can be seen as another means of recognising skills, though a distinctive and significant one,\u201d and \u201care dependent on the economic and social attributes that are ascribed to them by their users\u201d.<\/p>\n

Drivers for introducing micro-credentials<\/h2>\n

Micro-credentials introduce a wider range of learning pathways and opportunities. In addition, they \u201care seen to be fit for purpose [when they recognise such needs as] \u201caddressing the needs of the labour market, lifelong learning, upskilling and reskilling, recognising prior learning, and widening access to a greater variety of learners.\u201d In some cases, they can be recognised in legal documents, and this might include industrial awards in Australia, for example. Their \u201cgreater flexibility and \u2026 suitability for building sector- or occupation-specific skills (reskilling\/upskilling) in order to respond to the changing needs of industry may be particular advantage.\u201d Potentially, they can be nimble, but recognition of them and trust in them are important too.<\/p>\n

Links to qualification systems<\/h2>\n

Micro-credentials can be misunderstood and seen as a form of modulization. The question is whether modulization is seen as a bad thing, or something that has a value in a broader conception of VET\u2019s \u2018qualifications\u2019 and roles. However, another key feature is \u201cthe development of mechanisms to validate non-formal or informal learning.\u201d It\u2019s all bound up with the nature of qualification frameworks and how well they work and the extent to which they can accommodate and recognise all forms of valid learning. On approach is to use credit systems, the report suggests. This is possible in 22 EU countries. Another is their use in RPL processes. However, these both require high levels of trust and having respected, transparent and quality assured processes in place. The best approach, perhaps is that:<\/p>\n

\u201cAccredited and quality-assured microcredentials are more likely to be accepted across institutions and sectors, which points to a need to establish a common terminology to describe microcredentials (e.g. learning outcomes, level, volume).\u201d<\/p>\n