2Results of the Open Public Consultation

Individuals and organisations wishing to participate in the OPC were able to provide their feedback directly via the interactive survey questionnaire available on the EU Survey website. In total, 508 respondents completed the survey and 92 additional documents were uploaded.

Specifically, the OPC questionnaire asked respondents about their vision of what constitutes high-quality micro-credentials and what a European approach to micro-credentials could entail. It was divided into four sections and had a total of 21 questions covering: (1) Profile of respondents; (2) General questions concerning barriers to lifelong learning; (3) Views on European standards for micro-credentials and; (4) Final comments and recommendations. The second section examined respondents’ own understanding of obstacles that prevent adults from pursuing training. The third section gathered views on various aspects of micro-credentials, including the structure of a working definition of micro-credentials, what actions the EU should take in order to facilitate the take-up of micro-credentials and what could be the possible effects of taking a European approach to micro-credentials.

A data cleaning exercise of the OPC identified four instances of potential duplication in responses though none was explicitly identified as a campaign, thus the OPC results have not been adjusted and all responses have been considered in the below analysis.

The following sections of this report provide an overview of the results of the consultation and issues raised by respondents.

3Stakeholders submitting feedback

Key findings

·The OPC benefitted from a wide geographical spread of respondents, covering 43 countries in total. Overall, Italy was the most common country of origin of respondents, followed by Belgium, Hungary and Spain. EU citizens were the largest category of respondents, followed by academic / research institutions. The majority of the respondents were aged between 35 and 64 years old. Young people accounted for less than a fifth of all respondents and the elderly were the least represented category.

· Large organisations were the most numerous type of organisation to contribute to the OPC. Most organisations originated from Belgium. Public authorities had little representation in the survey overall. Among the professionals 1 who contributed to the OPC, two thirds in total stated having education and training as their main area of activity. Among organisations working in the field of formal education and training, the higher education sector was the most represented.

·Around two thirds of all respondents replied to the survey in their personal capacity (as an EU or non-EU citizen, learner, staff of education and training organisations in personal capacity, worker, job-seeker). Most of them were employed, in higher education or self-employed at the time they completed the survey. Respondents in their personal capacity considered “personal fulfilment” as the most important aspect in deciding whether to follow training, followed by need to “keep up with technological development” and “better employment chances”.

Overall, respondents were spread quite widely geographically, hailing from 43 countries in total (26 EU Member States and 17 third countries). As shown in the figure below, Italy was the most common country of origin of respondents (15.4%), followed by Belgium (9.6%). The number of respondents from Hungary and Spain was almost equal (8.9% and 8.5% respectively). Apart from that, only France and Romania reached the 6% threshold, corresponding to 30 responses or more. Germany, the Netherlands, Ireland, Finland, Portugal, Cyprus, Sweden and Austria all gathered at least 10 responses. Other EU countries were represented by less than 10 participants each. No respondents from Luxembourg participated in the OPC. Responses from third countries accounted for just over 8% of survey participants and included the United Kingdom (2.2%) and Switzerland (1%). Other non-EU countries received up to four responses only, representing less than 1% of respondents each.

As shown in the figure overleaf, those who answered the survey as EU citizens were the largest category of respondents (33.7%), followed by those who gave their contribution as members of academic/research institutions (18.3%). Other groups were those representing non-governmental organisations (11.4%) and public authorities (8%). There were almost no representatives of environmental organisations and no consumer organisation took part in the survey (although it is possible that they self-declared as representatives of NGOs). Companies and business associations represented 5.1% and 5.3% of respondents respectively, and trade unions just under 5%. Of note is the fact that the questionnaire was also filled in by persons who were not citizens of the EU (3%). Though 10% of respondents specified their capacity as “Other”, only five provided details: a member of the Board of Directors of an NGO offering professional and personal reconstruction through entrepreneurship programmes to women victims of violence, a PhD student, a professional leader of an EU non-governmental organisation, dealing with non-informal education, social and employment issues, an Erasmus project coordinator and a member of staff of an Italian micro-enterprise.

The majority of survey participants replied to the OPC questionnaire in their personal capacity i.e., as EU or non-EU citizen, learner, staff of education and training organisations in personal capacity, worker, jobseeker (63%). The majority of the respondents were middle-aged, between 35-54 years old (57.7%) and 55-64 years old (20.1%).

Organisations

As shown in the figure below, large organisations were the most common type of organisations represented by respondents (36.3% of a total of 322 respondents that answered the question on organisation size). Next were represented participants who were members of small and medium organisations (respectively 25.2% and 20.2% each) and slightly less numerous members of micro-organisations (18.3%).

Public authorities made just over 8% of all respondents (41), of which more than half were representatives of national or regional authorities, seven of national agencies in the field education and training, four of public employment service and two of municipality or other type of local actor. Three respondents selected “Other” but did not provide further details. For the most part, these representatives of public authorities were officials of public bodies operating on a national level (32), for instance education ministries and national qualification agencies. Five respondents noted working for public institutions on a local level (e.g., for city council and local job agencies), and seven on a regional level (e.g. regional government). The representatives of public authorities were mostly working on the level of authorities (23) and agencies (9).

The respondents who contributed in their professional capacity who stated working for an organisation were just over 36% of all respondents (184). Twelve organisations representing third countries (Georgia, Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States) also participated. Over a fifth of organisations originated from Belgium. Organisations from Spain, Italy, Finland and Germany represented over half of all organisations who completed the OPC. The figure overleaf does not include countries which gathered less than four responses.

Among the respondents who contributed in their professional capacity (188), 67% in total stated having education and training as their main area of activity. Of these, 50% reported working in the field of formal education and training (e.g. school, higher education institution, vocational education and training provider, adult learning provider, arts and music school) and the remainder in an industry, company or other organisation (e.g. chamber of commerce, craft or industry) providing training. The remaining respondents who contributed to the consultation in their professional capacity did not work in the area of education. The respondents working in the field of formal education and training made 18.5% of total respondents to the OPC (94). The top three most represented sectors and areas of formal education, selected by the highest number of respondents, were higher education (selected by 67), continuous vocational education and training / continuous professional development (44) and adult learning (38). The least represented sectors were early childhood education and care, and arts or music schools or academies. Nine organisations replied “Other” and included a student advocacy organisation from Finland, a set of public and private entities from Spain, Lisbon City Council, a coalition of Nordic institutions and authorities for adult learning / lifelong learning and three representatives of specific programmes related to learning mobility and youth workers competence development.

Respondents in personal capacity

Citizens were the largest group among the respondents to the OPC. They replied to the questionnaire in their personal capacity and represented just under a third of all respondents (168). The largest number of EU citizens responding to the questionnaire were from Italy, followed by Hungary, Spain and France. The figure below does not include countries which gathered less than four respondents. In contrast, respondents from Belgium were the second most numerous group at the level of all respondents to the OPC, which confirms that a large number of organisations who participated in the OPC were from Belgium.

The figure below shows that 60.9% of people who responded in their personal capacity (which include other categories than citizens, such as staff of education and training organisations in personal capacity) were employed full-time at the time they contributed to the OPC. The second largest group were participants in higher education (14.1%). “Self-employed” and “employed part-time” were the next most commonly chosen answers but they were significantly less numerous.

There were no respondents in the following categories: “in a traineeship or internship”, and “unemployed, not in education and not looking for job”.

Those who responded in their personal capacity were invited to rate the importance of several aspects in their decision whether to follow training and their feedback is presented in the figure overleaf. The respondents considered “personal fulfilment” as the most important aspect in deciding whether to follow training, followed by need to keep up with technological development” and “better employment chances”.

Over half considered the “access to better education opportunities” as very important. On the other hand, the “opportunity to move abroad” was regarded as the least important aspect, followed by “career change” and expectations of their employer.

Respondents providing additional feedback on these aspects mentioned, among others, their willingness to self-improve, the necessity to continuously develop their skill in their specific field, their care for environment, the need to provide for their family, preserving their mental stability, and the opportunity for training. Other aspects of personal development, such as widening of one’s horizon, honing of specific skills, upgrading academic qualifications or life-long learning plans were also suggested as important aspects in the respondents’ decision to follow training. Respondents also considered as important practical reasons such as the provider of training or the place and time a particular course would take place. Finally, several respondents emphasised the importance of keeping abreast with technological advances at the workplace.

4Views on barriers to lifelong learning

Key findings

·Overall, respondents agreed that there are many potential barriers which adults face in accessing of training opportunities. The great majority of the respondents viewed a personal lack of time as the main reason why the participation of adults in training is low, followed by the lack of support from employers and the uncertainty about whether a given training would be recognised by current and future employers.

·Overall, the respondents believed that the public authorities have the greatest responsibility to overcome such difficulties which prevent adults from undertaking training.

Learning after finishing formal education and training gives people the opportunity to upgrade their knowledge, skills and competences in a rapidly changing society and labour market. The OPC respondents were asked to point out the main reasons for the low participation of adults in learning across Europe. Five options in particular appeared to attract a larger number of responses, and all but one were considered as obstacles to adults accessing training opportunities by at least a fifth of respondents. As shown in the figure overleaf, the great majority of the respondents viewed “lack of time” as the main reason why the participation of adults in training is low (selected by 70% of all respondents).

The second most frequently chosen reason was “lack of support from employees” (43%). The survey participants also emphasised the “uncertainty about whether training will be recognised by any employer”. The top five reasons also included “the fragmented / insufficiently transparent information on training opportunities” and “lack of flexibility in the timing of training” as potential hindrances in adult’s participation in training (each chose by around 40% of respondents). While considered less significant, the remaining options were still classed as obstacles to adults joining training by at least one fifth of all respondents. On the other hand, the respondents did not see “feeling of uneasy in group or class-based learning situations” as a major obstacle preventing adults to take up training (only 9% chose this option).

Among those providing additional feedback on what they consider as barriers to adult learning, respondents noted that adults may be reluctant to admit their need to upskill or reskill, or may find it difficult to navigate training offerings.

For the most important five barriers to learning selected by each respondent, they were asked to state who should have the main responsibility to overcome the difficulty between the employer, the public authorities of the country or the person experiencing the barrier themselves. Overall, the respondents believed that the public authorities have the greatest responsibility to overcome difficulties that prevent adults from undertaking training.

According to the respondents, the public authorities should be the main actor in addressing uncertainty about recognition of training outcomes (38%), insufficient or poor information on training opportunities (37%) and lack of financial support to fund training costs (32%). To a lesser extent, some survey participants also pointed out that the authorities should bear the main responsibility to raise awareness on the benefits of adult training and ensure that training opportunities are tailored to the individual needs of those who seek training.

The survey participants were also of the view that employers should also play a leading role in tackling some of the obstacles that adults face with regards to training. Specifically, employers were thought to be in charge of providing more time for training (53%), provide more support to those undertaking training in general (38%), dispel uncertainties on the skills needed for career progression (27%) and offer more flexibility in the timing of training (30%).

The survey results indicate that the respondents did not consider that personal responsibility of individuals seeking training is decisive in overcoming existing barriers to training that adults may face. Personal responsibility was only significantly raised when addressing the lack of time for training finding ways to overcome lack of time for training (44%) as this can be attributed to personal reasons such as family or caring responsibilities.

5Views on European standards for micro-credentials

6Respondents’ experience with micro-credentials

Key findings

·Responses indicated that most organisations tend to provide micro-credentials in cooperation with other education and training organisations, rather than in collaboration with businesses. According to survey participants, most micro-credentials awarded by participating organisations were covered by regular internal or external assurance arrangements.

·Over half of the citizens / learners who contributed noted that they had previously acquired a document which could qualify as a micro-credential according to the working definition of the European Commission.

·Overall, respondents across all stakeholder categories agreed that the most important characteristics of a high-quality micro-credential was the recognition / acceptance by employers followed by quality assurance based on transparent quality standards; recognition by education and training organisations and recognition by national authorities. The participants considered availability in native language and their usefulness for cross-border mobility (portability) to be the least important aspects.

The OPC included 56 respondents representing institutions/organisations that would award micro-credentials. Of these, 44 noted providing courses leading to micro-credentials in cooperation with other institutions/organisations. Most organisations reported providing micro-credentials in cooperation with education and training organisations (24). 17 did not specify with what kind of organisations they cooperate with and three issued micro-credentials in cooperation with businesses. Nine institutions/organisations noted that did not cooperate with other external partners.

As shown in the figure overleaf, according to the respondents from the 56 organisations awarding micro-credentials, most (45) are covered by regular internal or external assurance arrangements. For the remainder, seven organisations answered they do not cover micro-credentials they deliver with quality assurance and four were unsure if they did.

Among the survey participants who replied in their personal capacity (320), 54% noted that they had previously acquired a document which could qualify as a micro-credential according to the working definition presented in the OPC and reproduced above. It is noteworthy that 12% were unsure and noted they did not know.

All OPC respondents were asked which are the most important aspects of high-quality micro-credentials in their view and the summary of responses is displayed in the figure overleaf. Most of the suggested aspects were considered as relevant to high-quality micro-credentials as overall they were considered as very important or rather important by at least two-thirds of the OPC respondents. The respondents were of the view that the four most important characteristics of a high-quality micro-credential should be the following:

·Recognition / acceptance by employers (considered as very important by 81% of all OPC respondents);

·Quality assurance based on transparent quality standards (75%); and

·Recognition by education and training organisations (74%) and recognition by national authorities (72%).

The OPC results indicate that the respondents first and foremost believe that there should be common standards of recognition of micro-credentials by all the institutions of importance and that their quality needs to be assured by transparent quality standards. Belief in the necessity of common standards may be also deduced from the fact that the survey participants saw as important the availability of micro-credentials in a widely spoken language (47% thought it to be very important) and that they should come from a reputable education and training provider (56%).

Furthermore, the connection of micro-credentials to labour market needs was also emphasised by the survey participants: more than a half of the participants believed that a high-quality micro-credential should also be linked to labour market needs (58% thought it to be very important) and offer skills and competences that are of direct use for current or future job (54% thought it to be very important). Concerning the cost, a majority of respondents considered it important that obtaining micro-credentials is not expensive (49% thought it to be very important; 40% thought it to be important), though this aspect did not rank in the top qualities desired in a micro-credential.

The attributes of micro-credentials as tools for learning gained were also considered as important though less so than aspects of recognition and quality assurance. They were less certain that micro-credentials should offer skills and competences that are useful for further learning though 46% still thought it to be very important. That micro-credentials need to be obtained through a validation of skills, be building blocks towards partial or full qualifications and available on online learning platforms were aspect which were supported by OPC respondents to similar degree as approximately half of respondents considered them very important and one in four – rather important.

The participants considered as least important aspects for the quality of micro-credentials the availability in native language and their usefulness for cross-border mobility (portability), considered as very important by less than a third of survey participants.

The figure below presents a breakdown of the responses provided on the four aspects which were rated as most important by all OPC respondents, for two key stakeholder groups - those who replied in their personal capacity (n=320, including but not limited to EU citizens) and who we could assume represent the ‘learners’ against the views of the business representatives or ‘employers’ (n=40, business associations and company/business organisations). Unsurprisingly, acceptance of micro-credentials by employers is significant for both employers and learners, as well as quality assurance based on transparent quality standards. Moreover, the recognition of micro-credentials by education and training organisations or the public authorities bore less importance for business representatives.

The respondents also shared a few other suggestions on what a high-quality micro-credential should look like. First, some of the survey participants mentioned that micro-credentials should be linked to educational classification systems in use: they proposed, among others, the European Qualifications Framework (EQF), the European Credit System for Vocational Education and Training (ECVET) units, and the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED). This was viewed as essential in ensuring wide recognisability of micro-credentials. Moreover, micro-credentials should also be made compatible with ESCO, new Europass, and QS information. Respondents also noted that micro-credentials can increase workers possibilities to access flexible lifelong learning and can complement workers’ upskilling and reskilling. It was highlighted that micro-credentials mainly have an added value when they work in addition to full qualifications but not as replacement of them.

An important comment was made in relation to the cost of obtaining micro-credentials, as the main purpose of micro-credentials cannot be to improve the access of socially disadvantaged people to further learning within higher education as this could increase inequalities between those who have access to full study programmes leading to full qualifications and between those who have the means to access only the short-time lifelong learning courses.

Furthermore, for the purpose of clarity, micro-credentials should use a standardised format and be based on transparent assessment/examination methods that promote the validation of real competences. Maintaining easy to understand language is also important. Further standardisation can be achieved by promoting a unitary pan-European mutual recognition of micro-credentials. In addition, respondents thought that micro-credentials with similar content delivered by different institutions should be comparable.

However, there were also minority views that claimed that the greatest value of micro-credentials lies in their flexibility. Seven respondents mentioned flexibility, including two non-governmental organisations which were particularly vocal. Concerning the method of validation of micro-credentials, multiple standards should be allowed to function as mentioned by six respondents (including an NGO and a business association). Moreover, it was argued that the creation of standards creates a homogenization among the various bodies that could provide these credentials, which again do not respect the differences and peculiarities of each entity and the pathway taken by each person (two business stakeholders). It was proposed instead that a common definition of competences may be developed, and micro-credential providers could be only required to show how in practice that competence has been implemented by a person. Using this method, the key concept of micro-credentialing could be protected at the European level.

In addition, there were also more theoretical takes on the purpose of micro-credentials. A few of the respondents stated that they should not only address labour market needs but foster democratic society.

7Respondents’ feedback on the working definition of micro-credentials

European Commission’s working definition of micro-credentials

A micro-credential is a proof of the learning outcomes that a learner has acquired following a short learning experience. These learning outcomes have been assessed against transparent standards.

The proof is contained in a certified document that lists the name of the holder, the achieved learning outcomes, the assessment method, the awarding body and, where applicable, the qualifications framework level and the credits gained. Micro-credentials are owned by the learner, can be shared, are portable and may be combined into larger credentials or qualifications. They are underpinned by quality assurance following agreed standards.

Key findings

·Overall, all elements of the working definition were considered valid by respondents, either as essential or recommended. Respondents considered that the most essential elements of the definition were the focus on learning outcomes and the assessment of learning outcomes against transparent standards.

·The potentially most divisive elements of the definition of a micro-credential were to include a focus on the short learning experience and the reference to the micro-credential’s inclusion in a qualifications framework.

Respondents to the OPC in their professional capacity (188, including any other categories than those who replied to the OPC in their personal capacity as EU or non-EU citizen, learner, staff of education and training organisations in personal capacity, worker, jobseeker) were asked to feedback on the elements of the working definition of the European Commission. The figure overleaf presents a summary of their answers. Responses are provided for all professionals together (188) and academic / research institutions (34).

Overall, all elements of the working definition were considered valid by respondents. All elements but one (“inclusion in a qualifications framework”) were considered as essential or recommended by at least 80% or just under of all professionals. Professionals taken together considered that the essential elements of the definition were:

·“focus on learning outcomes” (82%);

·“assessment of learning outcomes against transparent standards” (80%);

·“proof of learning contained in a certified document” (73%); and

·“underpinning by quality assurance” (69%).

These views are aligned to those of stakeholders from academic / research institution, which supported even more strongly the aspects related to transparent standards and proof of learning. Overall, perhaps due to their more intimate understanding of the working definition elements, this group of stakeholders was more positive on the inclusion of all the proposed elements in the Commission’s definition.

Opinions on the other elements were less firm. Respondents considered the following elements as less essential, but still recommended to include in the definition:

·the “portability across Europe”;

·references to “credits or other expression of workload”; and

·the “possibility to combine micro-credential into larger credentials or qualifications”.

The potentially most divisive elements of the definition of a micro-credential were to include a “focus on the short learning experience” and the reference to “inclusions in a qualifications framework”. Academic /research institutions were much more supportive of the inclusion of this element in the working definition, and businesses and NGO stakeholders were less in favour.

Details on the views on the working definition across all stakeholder groups in the OPC are presented in the tables below. The first summarises the percentage of respondents per stakeholder category who considered a certain element of the working definition as “essential”, whereas the second shows combined responses stating an element should be considered “essential” or “recommended” for the EU working definition on micro-credentials. The colour scale highlights the stakeholder groups which were the most numerous in blue and in red those who were the least numerous to consider this element as essential or recommended, based on the responses to the OPC.

Percentage of OPC respondents who considered a given element “ESSENTIAL” in the context of the working definition, per stakeholder group

Element of the working definition	All respondents	Academic / research institutions	Business (company / association)	Public authorities	NGOs (including consumer and environmental)	Trade unions
Focus on learning outcomes	82%	79%	73%	76%	88%	96%
Assessment of learning outcomes against transparent standards	80%	85%	70%	80%	74%	96%
Proof of learning contained in a certified document	73%	79%	48%	80%	74%	87%
Underpinning by quality assurance	69%	68%	53%	64%	74%	91%
Portability across Europe	47%	62%	38%	28%	74%	13%
Credits or other expression of workload	45%	53%	30%	60%	50%	30%
Possibility to combine micro-credentials into larger credentials or qualifications	41%	53%	30%	40%	43%	30%
Focus on the short learning experience	32%	35%	30%	48%	36%	9%
Inclusion in a qualifications framework	30%	38%	28%	16%	38%	4%
N: All respondents=188; Academia=34; Business=40; Public authorities=25; NGOs=42; Trade union=23

Percentage of OPC respondents who considered a given element “ESSENTIAL” or “RECOMMENDED” in the context of the working definition, per stakeholder group

Element of the working definition	All respondents	Academic / research institutions	Business (company / association)	Public authorities	NGOs (including consumer and environmental)	Trade unions
Focus on learning outcomes	98%	100%	93%	100%	100%	100%
Assessment of learning outcomes against transparent standards	96%	100%	95%	92%	95%	100%
Proof of learning contained in a certified document	91%	94%	80%	96%	93%	96%
Underpinning by quality assurance	97%	100%	90%	96%	100%	100%
Portability across Europe	82%	94%	78%	76%	98%	39%
Credits or other expression of workload	78%	88%	58%	92%	93%	52%
Possibility to combine micro-credentials into larger credentials or qualifications	79%	85%	68%	92%	88%	48%
Focus on the short learning experience	82%	88%	88%	92%	95%	26%
Inclusion in a qualifications framework	69%	85%	55%	56%	83%	30%
N: All respondents=188; Academia=34; Business=40; Public authorities=25; NGOs=42; Trade union=23

When asked to consider whether any elements were missing in the working definition of micro-credentials, the respondents voiced a few concerns. First, it was argued that the definition must be neutral in relation to formal, non-formal and informal learning, thus terminology should include broad terms, like “'learning period” and “learner”. Other language changes were also suggested: to use the term "attestation" instead of "certificate", to replace "holder" with "learner" and "awarding body" with "issuing body". Second, the working definition must take account of the results of training by detailing what was the impact of the learning on practice. Third, it is also important that micro-credentials mention how the course links to a full qualification. Since, it is a national competence to define how micro-credentials link to full qualifications and how they appear in the national qualifications frameworks, portability shall be decided between countries. The definition should also highlight "validity" of a micro-credential and how it is recognised by other providers, national authorities, and/or employers. Finally, respondents noted that the definition should make explicit that while a micro-credential has validity as a (micro)qualification in its own right, it is also desirable to mention that the course links to a full qualification. Regarding the proof, a micro-credential should be a proof of learning outcome, skill or competence, but not merely attest to the learning outcomes provided, but to those acquired and demonstrated.

8Respondents’ views on EU-level actions and measures

Key findings

·The respondents considered that the EU’s primary role is to ensure a coherent approach towards recognition of micro-credentials at the level of the EU.

·The most important actions and measures that the EU could take were to ensure recognition of micro-credentials and to provide a clear definition of micro-credentials. The remainder of the options were considered as very important by the respondents with the exception of the action to include information on workload, (which was also considered as being unimportant in the context of EU-level actions).

·Respondents agreed that most elements proposed by the European Commission 2 should be included in EU standard options to characterise micro-credentials under a European approach. More specifically, the great majority of respondents were of the view that the EU standard elements to characterise micro-credentials must include the identification of the holder of micro-credentials and title of the micro-credential.

All survey respondents (508) were asked about EU-level actions and measures that would facilitate the take-up of micro-credentials. All the suggested EU-level actions were considered important at least to some extent, as all options were validated as “very important” or “rather important” by at least 80% of respondents.

In line with the previous questions, the respondents considered that the EU’s primary role is to ensure a coherent approach towards recognition of micro-credentials at the level of the EU. As shown in the figure overleaf, the most important actions and measures that the EU could take, according to the survey participants, were:

·to ensure recognitions of micro-credentials (77% thought it to be very important); and

·to provide a clear definition of micro-credentials (77% thought it to be very important).

These were closely followed by the actions relating to the creation of EU-wide standards for quality and contents of the certificate delivered for the completion of a micro-credential (61% thought these actions to be very important), as well as to ensure the transferability of micro-credentials in different sectors of education and training and their portability across the EU (60%).

The remainder of the options were considered as very important by half of respondents at the exception of the action to include information on workload, which also gathered the most feedback as being less important in the context of EU-level actions. Options that would involve supporting the Member States were viewed as slightly less important. About half of the respondents wished for the EU to encourage integration of micro-credentials in national guidance services at national and local levels (51% thought it to be very important) and to encourage the Member States to set up lists of trusted providers (49% thought it to be very important). National authorities were the most supportive of these actions. Furthermore, the respondents were slightly less convinced of the need for the EU to engage in technical aspects of micro-credentials, such as providing digital tools (50% thought it to be very important) and supporting the possibility that micro-credentials can be combined into larger credentials (52% thought it to be very important). Among the stakeholders, these options were held to be crucial mostly by public authorities, NGOs and academic/research institutions. The respondents seem to be also less certain on the importance of the EU taking measures that would support closer cooperation between education and training institutions (50% thought it to be very important). The latter option was greatly supported by business associations and company/business organisations.

The respondents suggested a few additional actions that the EU could take to facilitate the take-up of micro-credentials. Among these suggestions were that the EU could use existing technological tools: survey participants recommended to examine the existing technological platforms like Badgecraft.eu and Open Badge initiative. Another suggestion was that the EU could provide various financial subsidies to promote the use of micro-credentials, for instance financing the replacement of workers during periods of training, including combined training for several workers by the same replacement. Funding to support co-construction of micro-credentials with industry, professional bodies, NGOs and stakeholders, as well as seed funding for pilot projects and ongoing funding for the costs of maintaining systems and records for learners were also suggested in this vein. A third suggestion was that the EU could encourage the involvement of private sector and employers and consider what are the needs of said actors: the EU need to start thinking about the demand pull (what the market wants) and relax the supply push (what HEI and VET providers want to deliver). Another suggestion encouraged the EU to start publicity targeted dissemination and awareness-raising campaigns for potential end-users (students, workers in training, teachers in professional development, adults in reskilling, etc.). Providing clear information and sign-posting to all citizens about the opportunities available was considered paramount by those respondents.

All OPC respondents were asked which elements should be included in EU standard options to characterise micro-credentials under a European approach. In the context of micro-credentials, standards refer to both ‘content’ standards (quality, certification, etc.) and ‘technical’ standards (interoperability, data, etc.) of the micro-credential. A shown in the figure overleaf, most proposed elements were well received by the OPC respondents, as each was at least considered as recommended by 60% of respondents. The great majority of respondents were of the view that the EU standard elements to characterise micro-credentials under a European approach must include:

·the identification of the holder of micro-credentials (90%);

·title of the micro-credential (87%);

·awarding body (77%); and

·date of issuing (77%).

The inclusion of information on learning outcomes and quality assurance of the credential were also considered essential by more than 60% of respondents. Options that would involve including more detailed information were slightly less supported by the survey participants but still considered as important by a majority of them. About half considered as essential in terms of content, that the micro-credential includes the level of the learning experience leading to micro-credentials, notional workload needed to achieve the learning outcomes, country/region of the issuer and quality assurance of the learning process.

Opinions were slightly more divided on other elements. One in four respondents considered that it should be optional to include information on the grade achieved and the form of participation in the learning activity. Almost a fifth considered the integration and stackability options, type of assessment and supervision and identity during assessment as snippets of information which should be optional in EU standard elements to characterise micro-credentials under a European approach.

A detailed overview of the stakeholder groups’ opinions on the elements which should be included in EU standard options to characterise micro-credentials under a European approach is presented in table below, based on the OPC responses. The colour scale highlights the stakeholder groups which considered each element as an essential feature of micro-credentials in the context of a European approach (in blue) and those who were the least numerous to consider this element as essential, based on the responses to the OPC. The table provides an overview of the extent to which element must be included in a potential list of standard option used to characterise micro-credentials in the context of a forthcoming European approach, according to each of the categories of key stakeholders.

Element of the micro-credential	All respondents	EU citizens	Academic/research institution	Business (company / association)	Public authorities	NGOs (including environmental)	Trade unions
Identification of the holder of the micro-credential	90%	90%	94%	88%	92%	86%	100%
Title of the micro-credential	87%	83%	88%	88%	100%	93%	100%
Date of issuing	77%	75%	79%	83%	88%	79%	96%
Awarding body	77%	73%	85%	80%	84%	76%	87%
Learning outcomes	68%	58%	74%	73%	92%	76%	83%
Quality assurance of the credential	62%	61%	65%	50%	100%	67%	91%
Country/Region of the issuer	52%	40%	59%	68%	80%	50%	83%
Level (and cycle, if applicable) of the learning experience	52%	49%	59%	25%	52%	52%	74%
Notional workload needed to achieve the learning outcomes	49%	47%	62%	33%	52%	60%	65%
Quality assurance of the learning content	49%	52%	35%	45%	56%	57%	91%
Supervision and identity verification during assessment	40%	48%	44%	33%	20%	36%	83%
Type of assessment	38%	32%	47%	45%	28%	43%	83%
Integration and stackability options	35%	33%	38%	20%	24%	26%	65%
Grade achieved	32%	31%	29%	23%	24%	26%	65%
Form of participation in the learning activity	26%	22%	24%	25%	12%	31%	65%
N: All respondents=508; EU citizens replying in personal capacity= 168;Academia=34; Business=40; Public authorities=25; NGOs=42; Trade union=23

The respondents also provided a few suggestions on what the standard elements of micro-credentials under a European approach should be. As a form of added verifiability, they recommended introducing a validity period of a micro-credential, a European online repository for issued certificates, unique code to validate the issuer, blockchain verification, and external control body that would supervise micro-credentials on a European level. Concerning the clarity and transparentness, they suggested including a short description of a context in which a micro-credential was awarded, specifically what a learner had to do to earn that competence or another evidence of learning or achievement. A respondent proposed to simplify the form in which a micro-credential would be issued: it would be accompanied by a diploma supplement, like in higher education, which would contain more detailed information. It was also suggested to include whether the credential has an expiry date or duration for its validity.

Finally, all OPC respondents were asked if they thought a European approach to micro-credentials can help achieve certain predefined aims. The survey participants generally agreed that a European approach to micro-credentials can help to achieve a plethora of goals. For each aim, 80% or just under of all respondents agreed or strongly agreed that a European approach to micro-credentials would help achieving it.

Respondents were especially certain of the usefulness of a European approach to micro-credentials in providing for increased portability and readability: increased portability of the credential from one job to another (57% strongly agreed), easier understanding of competences and skills of learners and workers by employers and education and training providers (49% strongly agreed), and easier understanding of outcomes across the EU (45% strongly agreed). These responses may be regarded as a confirmation that the survey participants mostly wish for standardisation and harmonisation of micro-credentials on the European level. Furthermore, the respondents were also convinced that a European approach to micro-credentials would lead to micro-credentials’ better accommodation to individual’s and market’s needs: that it would empower individuals to participate in up and reskilling (54% strongly agreed), that it would allow for better flexibility to learn according to own pace and needs (50% strongly agreed), and that it would result in fast development of new training offers to respond to demand on the labour market (44% strongly agreed). Moreover, the survey participants also believed that a European approach to micro-credentials would generate better links between education and providers with the labour market (44% strongly agreed). These views were especially strong among the business associations and company/business organisations.

However, the respondents were slightly less certain that a European approach to micro-credentials may lead to innovation in the area of learning. This is indicated by a more sceptical responses on whether it may cause more use of innovative learning content and materials to support learning and more use of innovative tools and online platforms to support learning or bring about innovative and engaging ways of learning (one in 10 disagreed that a European approach should support these aims). There were divergent views among the stakeholders on this point: while the public authorities and NGOs were generally positive of the potential of micro-credentials, academic/research institutions were less so.

The respondents mentioned several other possible aims that a European approach to micro-credentials may be able to achieve. First, micro-credentials can help link training to regional priorities. This implies a more joined up approach of triple helix players (business, education, government) in providing relevant bite-sized training opportunities focused on regional and business needs. Second, micro-credentials may be a tool to support employees at the time of radical technological transformation. Micro-credentials can be used to learn new things that build on previous education. Learning an entirely new field completely by oneself online is too taxing to believe to be reasonable. Third, micro-credential may be used to create more international outlook and network by learners as they can attend online micro-credential courses offered by training providers in other countries. A European approach could support the internationalisation and dialogue with countries outside EU on micro-credentials. This in turn would boost confidence and convince people to engagement with professional communities of practice and networks beyond their local one. Finally, a European approach could be used to further the better inclusion of disadvantaged groups into the CVET system, ensure that people with lower levels of qualification get official recognition of the skills acquired and an improved entry / re-entry into the labour market for individuals that normally no longer have access to traditional training means (NEETs, people who have failed university, cannot afford full degrees etc.).

9Additional contributions to the Open Public Consultation

10Respondents’ additional comments

At the end of the questionnaire, there was an open question to allow respondents to provide additional comments or suggestions to the consultation.

Some of the respondents made strong ethical claims concerning micro-credentials. One of the participants viewed them as an instrument of personal liberation: micro-credentials can help release one’s potential, by making it understandable and acceptable for the employer that a full expression of personality is an important motivating factor at work. Moreover, bite-size stackable micro-credentials may bring about a radical, equitable, world by providing: 1) new pathways into qualifications; 2) alternatives for those who've missed qualifying at the traditional time / place / way (for whatever reason), to earn qualifications and; (3) opportunities for those undergoing career change to obtain newly required qualifications for their new career while working/earning. However, some of the survey participants were concerned that micro-credentials may have negative outcomes. Micro-credential may become a competition to the physical higher education, which is also where one may accumulate social capital.

In addition, some of the comments questioned the utility of micro-credentials. It was claimed that in contrast to higher education, micro-credentials have not yet been applied in the field of vocational education and training. Potential applications must therefore first be tested. Also, a concrete added value of a European approach to micro-credentials for SMEs is not yet apparent.

Furthermore, some of the stakeholders stressed out the Member States need to be ultimately responsible for higher education. The European approach may provide an important frame of reference, but the ability of individual states to implement micro-credentials in their context of definition, recognition and certification of competences, also in relation to the description of job profiles, will be crucial.

11Position papers synopsis

During the period of the open public consultation, stakeholders formally submitted 92 position papers 3 . To analyse the various views expressed in the papers, they were grouped according to the following categories of stakeholders:

·Public authorities (including national and regional/local governments and agencies);

·Industry (including business associations, employers and labour/trade unions);

·Civil society (including non-governmental organisations (NGOs), youth organisations and vocational education organisations);

·Academic/research institutions (including universities, University Alliances, academic/research associations, project groups, and student unions); and

·Individual scientific contributions.

A detailed list of stakeholders that submitted position papers is provided in the Annex.

The sections that follow provide an overview of the views of the different groups of stakeholders as expressed in the position papers, as well as key takeaways from each of the groups. The analysis is structured around a set of main topics/issues, namely:

·The definition of micro-credentials;

·The role of micro-credentials (e.g. their place in higher education, their relation to the private sector, their opportunities and limitations);

·Recognition and portability;

·Experiences with micro-credentials and actions taken across the EU; and

·Recommendations going forward.

It is worth noting that the content of the position papers was quite varied and not all addressed the same topics/issues; therefore, in the sections that follow it is possible to find a more (or less) detailed breakdown of topics for each stakeholder group.

12Public authorities

National governments

Nine governments (eight Member States and Norway) submitted position papers (see Annex). Overall, they all welcomed the European Commission’s aim to establish a common European definition of micro-credentials with common characteristics and a roadmap of actions. However, they differed in some respects when it comes to their ideal visions of micro-credentials going forward.

Key findings

·National governments agree that micro-credentials should not replace traditional qualifications but have differing opinions of how micro-credentials should be incorporated into the existing education and training ecosystems, for instance into larger degrees.

·They see flexibility as one of the key strengths of micro-credentials.

·They consider micro-credentials as an opportunity to align citizens’ skillsets with labour market needs. Their potential of micro-credentials to make education and training more accessible was less emphasised by governments.

·There is disagreement among national governments on whether micro-credentials should be incorporated into the existing NQFs and should be awarded ECTS.

·All governments welcome the use of Europass to enhance recognition, but some point towards the importance of data protection.

·While some find that their national existing qualification systems are compatible with the European approach to micro-credentials, others fear that the latter could lead to parallel structures or undermine their national efforts.

Definition

Concerning the definition of micro-credentials, the French government draws attention to the fact that any common understanding of micro-credentials should cover three types of qualifications:

·professional qualifications recognised by the State or a public authority and included in national qualifications frameworks;

·certifications or authorisations, complementary to these qualifications;

·general or specific competences linked to a refresher course or to the mastery of a transversal competence.

The French authorities view the working definition of a micro-credential as a good starting point. However, they also emphasise the requirement that the definition should not have the effect of restricting the scope of micro-certificates to higher education. For this reason, it is essential that the definition should, in their opinion, be free of:

·The notion of duration. The extent of learning outcomes is not correlated with a standardised duration of training but varies from one individual to another.

·The notion of theoretical workload. The notion of credits in vocational education and training has not been retained by the Member States. This is a complex issue which cannot be resolved in the context of the European Commission’s initiative.

The Dutch authorities accept the Commission’s working definition of micro-credentials, although they see that certain elements will need to be further clarified, e.g., the relation with accredited and non-accredited education; credit and non-credit recognition; the minimum size of a micro-credential.

The Norwegian government proposes that the definition includes a specification of "transparent standards". It suggests specifying which European standards the definition refers to, like the European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS), EQF, the Lisbon Recognition Convention or others.

Role of micro-credentials

In terms of the role of micro-credentials, national governments referred to their:

1.Place in higher education

2.Flexibility

3.Relation to the private sector

4.Inclusiveness

13Place in higher education

National governments generally agree that micro-credentials should not replace traditional qualifications, but have differing opinions of how micro-credentials should be incorporated into the existing education ecosystem, for instance into larger degrees.

The Italian, Norwegian and Slovenian governments argue that while micro-credentials should be short learning experiences, credits awarded for a micro-credential could be used to receive wider qualifications.

Meanwhile, the Finnish government envisions that micro-credentials can be both parts of full degree and stand-alone credentials. However, a full degree cannot be “stacked” randomly as degree education is more than collection of individual micro-credentials in their opinion.

The French government is particularly keen to ensure that the definition of a micro-credential at European level does not undermine the legibility of national certification systems. They claim that a scenario in which micro-certificates could be cumulative or authorise combinations that would automatically constitute a complete diploma without examination by a professional jury, or even replace parts of a certification, would risk jeopardising the legitimacy of professional qualifications.

The German government is the most sceptical about the proposed initiative on micro-credentials. It notes that micro-credentials may generate a disproportionate administrative or financial burden for the Member States, as it may be a duplicate of other existing structures. Moreover, from Germany’s point of view, there is a general risk that the value of qualifications will be diluted across all educational sectors. The German government points out that the individual characteristics of higher education and vocational training in terms of content and organisation need to be respected and considered during the design of the micro-credential strategies.

14Flexibility

Governments see flexibility as one of the key strengths of micro-credentials. The Italian government thus argues that pathways should remain open to all learning modes/contexts (digital, physical, work based...). The Finnish government envisions that micro-credentials may be provided before, during and after studies that lead to a degree.

The German government in particular voiced concern about a potential trade-off between common European standards and micro-credentials’ flexibility.

15Relation to the private sector

National governments see micro-credentials as an opportunity to align citizens’ skill sets with labour market needs. The Italian government thus calls for micro-credentials to be oriented towards the concrete needs of the labour market.

The French government on the other hand argues for explicitly excluding regulated professions from the European approach to micro-credentials.

16Inclusiveness

While most governments emphasise the potential of micro-credentials in bridging the skills gap, some, such as the government of Slovenia, also point out their role in making education more accessible and inclusive. The Dutch government, on the other hand, argues that the European approach for micro-credentials should not only cater to publicly funded education, but also to private education and training institutions, as a crucial sector of providers of lifelong learning.

Recognition and portability

Regarding recognition and portability, national governments referred to:

1.Qualification frameworks and ECTS

2.Quality assurance

17Qualification frameworks and ECTS

There is disagreement among national governments on whether micro-credentials should be incorporated into the existing EQF/NQFs. The Italian, Dutch and Czechia governments all argue for this. Micro-credentials, the Dutch government argues, should complement the curriculum or can be valued in its own right, but in both cases a correct classification in the EQF is crucial.

The Finnish and Slovenian governments, on the other hand, see this as optional. The Slovenian authorities reserve the right to the Member States to incorporate them in their respective national education and qualification systems, introduce appropriate quality control mechanisms and tools, entrust appropriate institutions to verify, validate and undertake procedures of issuing, storing and keeping records of micro-credentials. The French and German governments on the other hand, are against assigning micro-credentials a level in the existing qualification frameworks. They argue that this would be contradictory to its nature of a complementary certification. The German government fears that the potential alignment of micro-credentials with national qualifications frameworks (and hence also the EQF) might undermine the credibility of and trust in the respective qualification frameworks.

National governments are split on the adoption of micro-credentials into the ECTS system. While the Dutch and Norwegian governments argue for this, the French Government opposes the proposition that in the area of higher education micro-certificates should systematically lead to the award of ECTS. It advises a laisser-faire approach: the decision should be left to the nature of the organisation issuing the micro-credential and depend on the content of a micro-credential. The French authorities refer to France’s own case where an ECTS credit does not exist outside of any diploma: it is either attached to a teaching unit forming part of a diploma, or it is provided for in a regulatory framework allowing the recognition of prior learning with a view to obtaining a diploma in higher education. Thus, ECTS would only be awarded when a micro-credential is indeed attached to a diploma prepared via a training pathway, whether it is initial training, or continuing training in the context of lifelong learning. Concerning the number of ECTS obtained through micro-certificates, a too small number of ECTS would make the concept useless and a too high number would contradict the very idea of micro-certificate. For France, a micro-credential should be able to confer between 5 and 30 ECTS credits.

With regard to national and cross-border recognition, the Italian, Dutch and Slovenian governments recommend the use of Europass and other European platforms for micro-credentials. This would, however, require progressive digitalisation, they recognise.

The Finnish and Dutch governments emphasised that the individual’s education data should be strictly protected. Micro-credentials are based on human-centred approach and may empower learners in documenting, managing and using their data on education, skills and competences, for further studies and employment.

The Italian, Finnish, and Dutch governments agree that micro-credentials need to incorporate the following information:

·Information on the learner: identification of the learner.

·Information on micro-credential: title, date of issuance or date of assessment information on the provider (including country), information on the awarding body or institution, if different (including country).

·Information on learning experience: learning outcomes, workload (in ECTS, whenever possible), assessment and form of quality assurance, grade achieved.

18Quality assurance

Concerning the quality assurance of micro-credentials, the French Government recommends that the inclusion of micro-certificates in national systems, which are themselves subject to a quality assurance mechanism, should address the need to ensure the credibility of micro-certificates among learners and enterprises. The quality assurance of micro-credentials should be linked to the quality assurance system specific to higher education institutions evaluated by a quality agency listed in the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) and which are recognised in this framework. Finally, the quality assurance within national systems guarantees the full involvement of economic and social representatives in the implementation and guidance of this quality assurance system, thus promoting the recognition of the use value of micro-certificates.

The Norwegian authorities believe that the existing quality assurance tools can, and should, be used also for the quality assurance of micro-credentials. They refer to the promising results of the Erasmus+ funded Microbol project, which has looked at how to integrate micro-credentials into the existing EHEA tools. Hence, they maintain that there is no need for a separate set of standards for the quality assurance of micro-credentials, but they would welcome the development of guidelines on how to use the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG) also for micro-credentials, following the lines of ENQA's guidelines on e-learning. The Norwegian government also stresses that on order to make sure to keep the flexibility associated with micro-credentials, the quality assurance processes for micro-credentials should not be excessively burdensome.

Experiences with micro-credentials

Many governments already have experience with micro-credentials or have similar offers in place in their countries.

For instance, Italy has already introduced a system of qualifications which is very similar to the planned micro-credentials on a European level.

The Finnish government (Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland) has not developed so far its own version of micro-credentials, but is in the process of implementing major educational reforms that would include actions towards skills intelligence, mapping and validation.

The Dutch government has recently started its own pilot project on micro-credentials that is being driven by local stakeholders. For this reason, while the Dutch authorities welcome the initiative by the European Commission, they also caution that the proposed EU approach should not disturb national developments, most of which are at an early stage. The EU should encourage and support national innovative approaches and help disseminating best practices in this area; introducing too prescriptive rules would be unnecessary.

The German government’s scepticism towards micro-credentials stems from its own belief that it already provides their citizens with a successful system of theoretical and practical vocational training. For this reason, Germany doubts whether development of a European framework including standards, requirements and certification criteria – which will have to meet the needs of the different sectors, regions, companies and continuing education participants in a flexible, targeted and anticipatory way – can provide genuine added value.

In its position paper, the Maltese government (Ministry of Education) requests a clarification from the European Commission whether its “awards” credential system is similar to what the prospective micro-credential system could entail. According to the Maltese Government, its “awards” credential system meets criteria that the prospective European micro-credential system is being planned to possess. The Maltese Government notes several advantages of its “awards” credential system. First, it allows for employers and NGOs to get formal accreditation for formal, informal and non-formal training provided to employees and members of the organisation. Second, employers and NGOs may request formal training for their employees or members of the organisation from education and VET providers that is tailor made for the organisation. Third, education and training providers may address the education and training needs of the labour market and of civil society by providing short, accredited and level-rated courses. Fourth, it creates opportunities for lifelong learning trajectories.

At the same time, the Maltese government observes two difficulties associated with the “awards” credential system. The first one is the lack of awareness of the difference between a full qualification and an “award” among employers, and education and training service users. The second one is the lack of expertise on the part of some organisations, economic or voluntary that would enable them to pass the quality test and thus formalise their education in the form an accredited “award”.

Further recommendations going forward

The Dutch government recommends widening communication and broaden consultation to the European community.

Regional/local governments

Five stakeholders at regional/local level submitted position papers including one consortium of cities, one local authority and three regional authorities. A detailed list of these organisations in included in the Annex. They were all positive about the Commission’s initiative to develop a European approach to micro-credentials.

Key findings

·Micro-credentials can enhance social inclusion by creating flexible learning paths for a wider group of learners.

·Regulation should be limited to what is strictly necessary and Member States should be able to implement the European framework in various ways. Such framework should focus on bringing clarity about the value and content of micro-credentials (e.g. in relation to open badges).

·There is general acceptance of the Commission’s working definition; although it was suggested that it should acknowledge the fact that the term ‘micro-credential’ can also refer to the learning activity that precedes it (one follows a MC) and that the term ‘small’ (rather than ‘short’) may be more appropriate for indicating the scope of a micro-credential.

Definition

The Lisbon City Council considered that the Commission’s working definition is clear and robust. The Flemish Education Council agreed especially with the aspects of stackability and ownership by the learned. But they commented on part of the terminology. For instance, for them, the term micro-credential can also be used to refer to the learning activity that precedes the micro-credential (one follows a micro-credential). This interpretation is not included in the proposed definition. Moreover, the term ‘small’ seems better suited to describe the scope of a micro-credential, rather than ‘short’ which instead gives an indication of time.

The Flemish Ministry of Education and Training stressed that the working definition applies better to micro-credentials in formal education, but the reference to learning outcomes assessed according to transparent standards makes the definition less suitable for application in informal education. It also mentioned that the term ‘small’ (rather than ‘short’) may be more appropriate for indicating the scope of a micro-credential.

The consortium behind the project “Cities of Learning” believes that the Commission should include more types of micro-credentials in the definition, thereby ensuring that they cover all the richness of learning.

Role of micro-credentials

The Lisbon City Council and Flemish Education Council emphasised the links of micro-credentials with lifelong learning and stated that they provide learners with flexible and personalized pathways of learning. They also provide an opportunity to work towards a more inclusive education and training, in particular for learners who cannot access other types of qualifications. Both stakeholders also saw micro-credentials as complementary to formal education and the existing training offer. The possibility of stacking micro-credentials allows for many flexible combinations between micro-credentials and formal qualifications.

Recognition and portability

In relation to this, stakeholders referred to:

1.Quality assurance

2.Open/digital badges

19Quality assurance

The Flemish Ministry of Education and Training considered that the most important aspects of the quality of micro-credentials are that they are recognised by national authorities and education and training organisations and that they are accepted by employers. In terms of the elements that are not essential, the Ministry considered that the fact that micro-credentials are available in the mother tongue is not an indication of their high-quality; however, the offer should include courses in individual’s mother tongue. Moreover, cooperation with employers, business associations or chambers of commerce for developing the content of micro-credentials is not always essential, but should be determined by the subject matter of the courses in question. Availability of online courses is not a necessary condition for high-quality micro-credentials; although it helps to address the barrier of lack of time. Finally, helping people to be mobile between countries not either a pre-requisite for a high-quality micro-credential; although it is desirable that micro-credentials are portable.

20Open / digital badges

The Lisbon City Council has been using micro-credentials extensively over the past four years in the form of digital open badges issued to learners upon successful completion of short-term training courses. Over 2000 micro-credentials have already been issued through the Badgecraft.eu free platform. Earned badges become available on an online portfolio, the "Digital Skills Passport", allowing skills to be shared across the web, on social networks or included in a CV. The initiative is targeted at all audiences, with a focus on the unemployed, the elderly, and those with low levels of education or on low incomes.

The consortium behind the project “Cities of Learning” also advocates to use and promote digital open badges as a standard for future micro-credentials, saying that they allow connections with ESCO or any other European or national qualification framework, thereby ensuring transparency to the achievements represented by a badge.

The Flemish Ministry of Education and Training however clarified that even though in practice open badges are more often applied to micro-credentials, they can also be used to digitally represent a formal qualification issued by a formal education institution. They are a means to visualising a credential and not a credential in itself.

Recommendations going forward

For the Flemish Education Council, it is key to establish common standards at EU level for the transferability, stackability and recognition of micro-credential. However, the application of these common standards should not compromise the administrative workability of rolling out the micro-credential, nor the institutional autonomy of the HEI in assuring the quality of micro-credential. The EU approach should also be to limit regulation to what is strictly necessary, giving freedom to the MS to implement the EU framework in various ways and considering the local context. Moreover, they see that good quality assurance is indispensable and flagged that a long-term and sustainable policy on financing, infrastructure and staffing from the EU, but also from the Member States, is essential to stimulate the supply and accessibility of micro-credentials. Finally, they stressed the importance of involving learners in the development and implementation of micro-credentials.

For the Flemish Ministry of Education and Training, in developing the European approach to micro-credentials, it is important that the Commission develops synergies with other ongoing (international) initiatives. Moreover, the focus needs to be on bringing clarity about the value and content of micro-credentials (i.e. where the course is located within the existing offer of education and training and whether or not it is a gateway to something else). Also, the objective is to encourage Member States to think about micro-credential and the need for a policy at the national level. But the final decision on whether or not to set up micro-credentials within a Member State or to classify smaller courses as micro-credentials should remain within national competence.

Experiences with micro-credentials

The Government of Navarra described a project (Basic skills learning strategies for employment pathways 4 ) which objective is to test new basic skills learning strategies for adults who struggle with basic literacy and numeracy skills or possess few digital competences. It is at its inception phase, and they are currently searching for good practices and experiences from other places. For this reason, they wish to extend its invitation for a virtual meeting to discuss the European Commission’s experiences as trainers in digital skills.

National agencies/hubs

Four national agencies/hubs submitted position papers. Please refer to the Annex for a detailed list of stakeholders in this category. They all welcomed the Commission’s initiative to develop a European approach to micro-credentials and had positive comments about it.

Key findings

·Lifelong learning and employability are the key drivers for micro-credentials.

·The suggested pillars of the European approach are: validation and recognition, quality assurance, flexibility and accessibility to micro-credentials to all types of learners.

·General acceptance of the Commission’s working definition, but there was one suggestion that the term ‘micro’ may be a better indication of the scope of a MC than ‘short’.

·A micro-credential is something being studied on a “micro” level and does not necessarily mean a “very small” credit-load.

Definition

The Netherlands House for Education and Research (Neth-ER) supports the Commission’s working definition of a micro-credential although they suggest also including the scope of a micro-credential in the definition.

The UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) did not refer to the specific terminology used in the working definition but proposed the following characteristics of micro-credentials developed within the UK higher education sector: they are credit-bearing against a recognised level of the national framework for higher education qualifications; they are subject to standard quality assurance mechanisms; and whilst there are no upper or lower limits on the amount of credit that a micro-credential carries, they should not normally constitute an award in its own right on the qualifications frameworks. The QAA also supported the idea that a micro-credential does not necessarily mean a “very small” credit-load but, rather, that it is something being studied on a “micro” level. This means micro-credentials are not studied as part of a larger whole (or degree) even if they are, for example, modules which might sit within an approved degree programme.

Role of micro-credentials

In general, stakeholders highlighted the promotion of lifelong learning and employability as key drivers for micro-credentials, with some placing a greater focus on the former and others on the latter.

For example, the Accreditations and Certifications Taskforce emphasised the opportunity of designing a micro-credentials strategy that is highly connected to employability, especially in what pertains to digital competencies. They see data driven micro-credentials, with simple and clear taxonomy, trusted by all stakeholders, portable, and owned by the user as the founding principles of such strategy. These elements would help to “bridge the gap” between employers, the workforce and educators.

The Neth-ER stressed the importance of micro-credentials for the further development and implementation of the European Education Area, particularly in ensuring flexible pathways in education and supporting lifelong learning in the context of the green and digital transitions. However, integrating the needs of the labour market and societal challenges for designing the modules/courses for the life-long learner was also highlighted as a key element of the approach.

The QAA recognised that there is a ‘sense of momentum’ around the concept of short, industry-focused learning that enables upskilling, whether this entails re-orientating someone’s career or to enable someone to begin achieving higher education qualifications. Moreover, for micro-credentials to be a sustainable development and deliver lifelong learning as hoped, there will need to be a significant re-think of the experience of higher education and the value of a learner-directed, employability-focused approach.

Skills Norway praised the Commission’s initiative and highlighted that having a common European framework on micro-credentials will be a useful and important contribution to the development of unified systems for lifelong learning, contributing to mobility and flexibility for adult learners.

In relation to micro-credentials place in higher education, one Neth-ER emphasises that diploma-oriented learning and the role of formal education providers should remain at the foundation and therefore micro-credentials should be complementary to, or an integral part of full degrees, without replacing them.

Further recommendations going forward

For Neth-ER, the pillars of the European approach to micro-credentials should be: the validation and recognition process; the further development of the EQF; and the possibility to accumulate micro-credentials into a larger credential or degree. They also stressed the importance of ensuring accessibility to learners of all education levels (i.e. low barrier to entry).

The QAA also flags the importance of inclusion and claimed that without proper funding learners who have not yet had an opportunity to engage successfully in higher education, and/or are from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, will take up micro-credentials. An additional point raised was that the European approach should impose minimum regulatory requirements to safeguard the integrity, reputation and credibility of micro-credentials (e.g. not impose parameters around size/length of a micro-credential). It is therefore an enabling – rather than constraining – approach.

Moreover, the Neth-ER suggests the financing of promising projects/pilots by the Commission and national governments, facilitating micro-credentials by national legislation, setting up a formal entity at EU level that coordinates these efforts and brings national stakeholder networks together, continuous stakeholder engagement (including representatives of students and the employment sector, and European University Alliances), establishing links with the Commission’s initiative on Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs), modernising the Europass portal, integrating units for micro-credentials within educational programmes.

The QAA welcomes the Commission’s proposal for standard information and suggests key information which could be provided on completion of a micro-credential, including: learner name/identification; title of the micro-credential awarding body, date of issue, workload in CATS/ECTS level of study, mode of learning, aims and learning outcomes, mark/grade achieved, Common Aggregation Hierarchy (CAH) and Higher Education Classification of Subjects (HECoS) code 5 , and any professional, statutory or regulatory body (PSRB) recognition.

21Industry

Four business associations, six labour/trade unions and seven employers (private companies) submitted position papers. A detailed list is included in the Annex.

Key findings

·Industry stakeholders see micro-credentials as an important tool to re- and upskill their existing workforce. Cooperation with the private sector in developing courses is therefore key.

·Industry stakeholders ask for the definition to refer to the quality assurance process of micro-credentials and stated that European standards should not limit the flexibility of micro-credentials which is seen as one of their key strengths.

·There was an overall agreement that micro-credentials should be viewed as a complementary tool in addition to degrees without substituting them.

·Industry stakeholders have differing opinions about the inclusion on micro-credentials into existing qualification systems, but they all agree that it should be up to each qualification provider to decide which European standards they want to subject to.

Definition

Stakeholders largely endorsed the working definition of micro-credentials provided by the European Commission. However, the Austrian Chamber of Commerce (ACC) suggests the need to specify this definition further, especially regarding quality assurance. Similarly, the ACC recommends further developing the definition and adopting an approach which permits different existing instruments of quality assurance. This would be based on the premise that it is up to providers to decide whether they want to subject themselves to the mechanisms in return for the right to declare their offers micro-credentials according to European standards. The Luxembourg Chamber of Commerce (LCC) as well as SMEunited stress the limitation of the definition proposed by the European Commission in regard to its focus on the needs of Higher Education rather than VET. Overall, both stakeholders recommend more research, and piloting and to best assess which requirements micro-credentials must meet for being fully “VET-compatible”.

Role of micro-credentials

In relation to the role of micro-credentials, industry stakeholders referred to their:

1.Place in formal/higher education

2.Relation to labour market and employability

3.Flexibility

4.Inclusiveness

22Place in formal/higher education

There was overall agreement that micro-credentials should be viewed as a complementary tool in addition to degrees without substituting them. In that context, the German employers’ association (BDA) calls for a clear differentiation of higher education, continued education and VET and points towards the different systems of Member States. Micro-credentials, they argue, should not disrupt those existing systems. Similarly, the ACC notes the importance of not diluting nor diminishing the value of established qualifications. Both stress that European standards for micro-credentials should not fragment successful national systems of formal VET qualifications such as apprenticeship qualifications and master craftsman qualifications. In that regard, the ACC strongly recommends that the right to exercise professions in the EU remain tied to formal qualifications. EUROCHAMBRES provides similar views and arguments, stressing that the framework for micro-credentials can be an additional option for increasing access to adult education, but that it must not allow for a possibility of building qualifications or degrees from a collection of various micro-credentials, which would cause a devaluation of diplomas, degrees and qualifications. The Confederation of German Trade Unions (DGB), the Danish Trade Union Confederation (FH), the Italian Federation of Education Workers (FLC), the European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) and the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) all echo the same view namely that courses leading to micro-credentials can be considered as continuous professional development but not replacement of the initial education, especially for teachers.

Both ETUCE and ETUC also draw attention to the importance of respecting individual academic freedom and the institutional autonomy of higher education institutions which have been under attack from labour market demands and public budget cuts. This in turn forces universities to seek additional funding, often by providing short-term courses for the labour market. They disagree with the European Commission that short-term courses such as the ones leading to micro-credentials can increase the “efficiency” of higher education institutions. Their view is that micro-credentials will only further increase privatisation and marketisation of general education of pupils.

23Relation to labour market and employability

Private companies and business associations agreed that improving access to lifelong learning opportunities is essential to train the existing workforce and develop their skills to enable them to have an evolving career in their respective sector. All highlighted the importance of re-skilling and upskilling employees to meet current and future needs and in particular for sectors suffering from labour shortage, such as the social services sector mentioned by the Federation of European Social Employees (FESE) and the agricultural sector mentioned by the Farm Tech Society (FTS). In that regard, the FESE, the ACC, EUROCHAMBRES and Google all strongly advise putting more emphasis on labour market relevance of micro-credentials in order to narrow skills gaps. For instance, EUROCHAMBRES noted that many graduates of higher education face difficulty finding work because their education does not meet the skills requirements in the job market.

Stakeholders also noted that the pandemic had accelerated the adoption of digital tools and that an acceleration in the uptake of skills is therefore needed to fully harness the benefits for Europe’s future jobs and economic recovery from the pandemic. Google suggests that to help supply job-ready skills, micro-credentials should build capabilities for in-demand roles with an understanding of key job tasks and skills required to fill those roles. Both Google and the French Network of Chambers of Trades and Crafts (CMA) also recommend for micro-credentials to reflect feedback and input from employers and industry partners to create real-world exercises that can be referenced in the curriculum.

24Flexibility

Micro-credentials were highlighted by stakeholders as bringing more flexibility to the learning pathways and personalised learning in a way that responds to companies and workers’ needs. The Confederation of Danish Employers (DA) notes the importance of flexible learning opportunities in the context of a rapidly changing labour market. EUROCHAMBRES note that this flexibility is especially relevant in ensuring the implementation of digital and green transitions through wider access to training. Similarly, both the BDA and SMEunited recognise that the flexibility of micro-credentials is what makes them attractive. They note that European standards will have to preserve that flexibility rather than overregulate the field to allow enough flexibility for micro-credentials to adapt to the fast-changing training needs of the labour market.

25Inclusiveness

Overall, stakeholders positively highlight the inclusiveness of micro-credentials noting that it give groups who are disadvantaged in the labour market - such as people with disabilities or migrants - quicker and easier access to paid work. This was stressed as particularly relevant in the context of the COVID-19 crisis and the transition to a digital and green economy. The FESE note the added value of micro-credentials for people who want to switch to the social services sector but who cannot afford to do a lengthy training. Similarly, IndustriALL note that training through micro-credentials contributes to reducing the polarisation of the labour market in terms of skills and qualification. To increase inclusiveness further, the DGB suggests making micro-credential free of charge at HEIs both for students and external learners.

Google note that Europe’s approach to micro credentials can help to tackle gender and economic inequalities that have been further widened by the pandemic. Underrepresented groups, low-income workers and women exposed to hard-hit sectors like food service or hospitality as well as older workers without suitable experience were mentioned as benefiting from the possibility offered by micro-credentials.

Recognition and transferability

There is a consensus that it is important to define quality standards for micro-credentials among private sector stakeholders however there are diverging views regarding the standards to be set. For instance, the DA suggests that the European approach should include micro-credentials into the EQF, through the National Qualification, and the DGB sees it as essential that micro-credentials follow the same quality standards as other targeted educational offers. In contrast, the BDA, the Federation of German Employers' Associations in the Metal and Electrical Engineering Industries (M+E) and the DGB remain sceptical regarding the incorporation of micro-credentials into the ECTS and the EQF/NQF systems.

All stakeholders agree that it has to be up to any qualifications provider to decide, whether, and if so, to what extent and with which specific qualifications the provider wants to subject itself to the European standards to be developed under this initiative. They note that the European definition of standards should not lead to the creation of a large bureaucratic burden, for instance regarding quality assurance. They also strongly stress that the framework should not lead to excessive regulation, which would compromise the flexibility of the offer, but should instead support smooth training provision. To that end, EUROCHAMBRES recommends for relevant stakeholders to be involved in the quality assurance procedures to ensure trust in the quality of the provided training.

Involvement of social partners

Several stakeholders mention the importance of involving social partners in shaping the approach to micro-credentials to benefit both employers and workers. Namely, both the DA and the FESE stress the importance of involving social partners in the development of common European standards as they have the best understanding of skills and training needs in their sector. Similarly, CMA France, Google, the LCC and IndustriALL all stress the need to guarantee the involvement of the social partners in the definition of skills and of the qualifications and training courses eligible for the individual learning account. They note that continuous learning projects must be part of a logic of co-construction between the employers and the employees. IndustriALL also recommends and highlights the benefits of combining short-time work arrangements - which have been implemented to deal with economic downturn and prevent massive lay-offs - with upskilling and note that trade union involvement is essential to make sure that the training offered fulfils workers’ needs.

26Academic/research institutions

25 Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and academic/research associations submitted position papers – eight universities (of which four are European universities), three University Alliances, nine academic/research associations, two project groups, and three student unions.

Key findings

·The definition of micro-credentials should state more clearly what types of courses micro-credentials encompass and what their scope and level is.

·Universities agree that micro-credentials should be a complementary tool to full-fledged degrees. Opinions on the stackability of micro-credentials to larger degrees vary.

·Micro-credentials as an opportunity to bridge the gap between academia and the private sector, but attention should be paid that both influence and benefit each other.

·Agreement on the importance of rigorous certification criteria but suggest a decentralised approach to quality assurance and governance to maintain micro-credentials’ flexibility and reduce the burden on institutions.

·Agreement that micro-credentials should be awarded digitally to ensure recognition and portability across borders, with several stakeholders recommending the use of Europass. There is disagreement about whether open/digital badges and micro-credentials should be mixed or separated with the former rewarding personal skills and the latter academic learning outcomes.

·Broad consensus that micro-credentials should be included in the existing qualification frameworks like EQF/NQFs and ECTS. It is unclear how non-HEI providers would fit into those systems, however.

·Agreement on the need for sustained funding for awareness building, innovation, and research on micro-credentials.

·There is a strong urge for collaboration, both between HEIs and with the private sector. European Universities can act as lighthouses in this.

Definition

Universities agreed that a clear definition of micro-credentials is needed and would help uptake. Microbol pointed out that guidelines and common principles for implementing micro-credentials should ideally only be developed after a consensus on their definition is reached.

There is some confusion as to what counts as a micro-credential based on the working definition. While Bildungsnetzwerk Magdeburg recommends including more types of micro-credentials in the definition such as memberships, participations, motivations, and contributions, the ENLIGHT University Alliance wants the definition to make a clearer distinction between micro-credentials and other granular learning experiences such as working experience.

Unite! and Una Europa suggest clarifying the scope and level of micro-credentials by referencing existing qualification frameworks and ECTS in the definition. This would help arrive at a common understanding of how ECTS can be utilised to recognise the stackable accumulation of learning outcomes should be facilitated instead of re-inventing a system for recognition, Unite! argues. Una Europa wants the definition to specify whether the ECTS and EQF may be extended to non-academic providers in this regard. They ask for a clearer definition of “agreed standards” in relation to the quality assurance, especially for private providers. The ENLIGHT University Alliance proposed changing the wording from “short” to “small” courses to specify both ECTS and duration of study.

Lastly, Una Europa advocates that the definition of learners remain as open as possible, so as not to restrict the use of micro-credentials to a specific group of learners only but ensure a truly inclusive and open approach.

Role of micro-credentials

In terms of the role of micro-credentials, HEIs and associations referred to their:

1.Place in higher education

2.Role in relation to VET

3.Flexibility

4.Relationship with the private sector

27Place in higher education

Universities and student unions agree that micro-credentials should be viewed as a complementary tool in addition to degrees without substituting them. The EC2U University Alliance argued that “deep learning” is necessary to tackle pressing problems the world faces today such as climate change. EDEN University proposed altering the definition of micro-credentials accordingly to read “a micro-credential is a certification of assessed learning that is additional, alternate, complementary to or a formal component of a formal qualification.” The KU Leuven Association situates micro-credentials furthermore in the framework of post-initial, continuous education.

Several stakeholders also emphasised micro-credentials’ potential for making education more inclusive and offering alternative pathways for a diverse set of learners. The KU Leuven Association pointed out, however, that the goal of boosting innovation and filling skills gaps in the work field should be more clearly separated from the goal of realising more inclusive education since they do not necessarily require the same conditions. For instance, they argue that the stackability of micro-credentials is likely to attract non-conventional learners but is not a necessary condition for closing the skills-gap. They recommend putting further measures into place to ensure inclusiveness, such as offering small learning units and extra study guidance. They recommend not just “cutting and pasting” existing learning contents for generation students into smaller learning units but tailoring courses to the learners.

Views on the stackability of micro-credentials varies among HE stakeholders. Stackability is viewed as an important prerequisite to making education more accessible and inclusive, as the VIA University College Denmark and others point out. The STACQ Project, a consortium consisting of ENIC-NARIC centres and other stakeholders, advocates for stackability because it would facilitate the recognition of micro-credentials. They encourage providers to design options to “pre-stack” micro-credentials within a coherent programme. This is partially already practiced in the Flemish community of Belgium and in Sweden where university degrees consist of stackable courses. Students can choose whether to obtain the full degree or take specific courses to obtain a certificate. Una Europa on the other hand advocates against the possibility of stacking micro-credentials into a full degree.

28Role in relation to VET

MBO Raad finds it crucial to use the existing instruments from the Bologna agreement and, specifically for VET, the agreements from the Copenhagen process and the subsequent declarations and communiqués to integrate micro-credentials in the education systems. Regarding the size of micro-credentials in relation to VET, they suggest 240 study hours at levels 3 and 4, the size of an optional module. For smaller educational units, they find, it is better to use Edubadges to demonstrate the knowledge and skills acquired.

29Flexibility

The EAU emphasised flexibility as one of the key strengths of micro-credentials. The European approach needs to acknowledge that micro-credentials come in diverse formats and this forms part of their strength and allows for the development of a rich and competitive micro-credential market. They can be delivered in online, face-to-face, or in blended formats. They can also be as stand-alone units of learning or structured in a sequence of courses that can be embedded eventually within, or cumulate into, a larger credential. The EUTOPIA University Alliance, for instance, offers short term intensive courses that are embedded in their existing curriculum and backed by the quality control of full-fledged degree programmes. The Danish Student Union however warns of a potential trade-off between flexibility and coherence in education.

30Relationship with the private sector

EUCEN argued that university life-long learning (ULLL) often serves as a bridge between the academic and the outside world. They noted, however, that the integrity and holistic approach of the programmes should not be missed. Learning should be about developing knowledge and understanding, not just enhancing economic potential.

EURASHE emphasised the opportunity and potential micro-credentials bring to Professional Higher Education (PHE), particularly due to its role in connecting various regional and national innovation actors, fostering a close link with the world of work, emphasizing the applied sciences and profession-relevant competences and future skills. The Danish Student Union agrees that the main value of micro-credentials lies in their potential to bridge the skills gap and therefore argues that skills learnt through micro-credentials should be directly applicable in the job market. The KU Leuven Association on the other hand argues that micro-credentials should not only be based on the market’s needs but can also play an innovating role by injecting new insights from research into businesses and organisations.

Recognition and portability

Generally, HEIs and research/academic associations agree that rigorous certification criteria need to be established to ensure the credibility of micro-credentials. However, opinions differ as to what these criteria should be.

In particular, stakeholders referred to:

1.Right to issue micro-credentials

2.Open/digital badges

3.Qualification frameworks and ECTS

4.Quality assurance

31Right to issue micro-credentials

The ENLIGHT University Alliance argued that the right to issue micro-credentials should be limited to academic institutions while others recognise that there is an open competitive market for providing micro-credentials. However, as EUCEN and the University of Helsinki, among others, point out, standardisation is important and special attention should be given not to cause commercial exploitation through micro-credentials. HEIs should, according to the latter, be at the centre of developing common European standards.

32Open/digital badges

Recognition and portability of micro-credentials was a major concern for all stakeholders with varying suggestions on how to best achieve this. Several stakeholders already use some form of digital badges for this. For instance, the university CEU Cardenal Herrera shared their competency certification model through digital “open badges”. Open Badges are online representations of learning experiences and achievements in the form of a symbolic image with embedded metadata as an example. A learner/employee can collect badges from formal and informal learning experiences and those badges can collectively tell a story about that person's education and skills (Knowledge/ Competencies/ Skills/ Experience). Universidad CEU San Pablo, Madrid and Universidad Abat Oliba CEU, Barcelona also use this model. Similarly, Bildungsnetzwerk Magdeburg also uses a system of digital Open Badges. MBO Raad introduced the Dutch system of Edubadges, which are registered documents issues by a registered body. In The Netherlands, SURF Edubadges is the only sector-wide platform available for digital certificates in the Dutch education sector.

Other stakeholders such as the EPICUR European University, Education and Training Boards Ireland (ETBI), and the Irish University Association (IUA) do not agree with this approach. They argue that micro-credentials should be clearly distinguished from badges. Micro-credentials certify, reward and recognise academic learning outcomes while badges are a means to capture certify, reward and recognise personal skills and achievements. ETBI and the STACQ Project argue it is important to recognise people’s life experience as well and suggested using micro-credentials in tandem with Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) to provide a more comprehensive approach to assessment. Assessment, ETBI suggest, could also be through practical demonstrations. Microbol, on the other hand, argues, that validation of learning outcomes should only be used in cases where a formal credential is absent or does not provide enough reliable evidence on the learning outcomes.

Stakeholders agree that micro-credentials should be awarded digitally to ensure recognition and portability across borders. The EC2U University Alliance noted in their position paper that the platform used for this needs to be in line with the internationally agreed standards (interoperability, protection of personal data, etc.), and in line with the European digital education action plan. The IUA, ESU, as well as many others complimented the EC’s work on developing the Europass Digital Credentials Infrastructure (EDCI) in this regard. One of the universities under the IUA, the University College Cork (UCC), argues that a holistic approach to micro-credentials bringing in the Europass Digital Credentials and European Digital Actions Plan initiatives would add true currency to micro-credentials. They recommend this should be interoperable with existing university and national systems. Bildungsnetzwerk Magdeburg and MBO Raad advocated for opening the EDCI to add micro-credentials. Una Europa points towards the value of ongoing pilot projects such as the European Blockchain Services Infrastructure Early Adopters (EBSI) in ensuring portability of micro-credentials across borders. Unite! points out that there is a need for transportability between educational platforms, e.g., learning management systems (LMS) operated by universities, companies, and NGOs. Recognition platforms also already exist that increasingly allow displaying badges, certificates, and micro-credentials. The ESU and ANOSR believe that while the micro-credentials infrastructure should allow students to store and transfer their achieved credentials, it is necessary to avoid creating pressure on learners to collect certain credentials, to void “tokenisation” of their education path. They also call for “privacy by design” in this infrastructure.

33Qualification frameworks & ECTS

There is a broad consensus among stakeholders in the HE-sector that micro-credentials should be included in the existing qualification frameworks. Microbol, the STACQ Project, ENLIGHT, EUCEN, the IUA, VIA University College Denmark, the ESU and the University of Helsinki, among others, recommend including micro-credentials in the EQF and NQFs as this would help classify them and alleviates the administrative pressure on HEIs associated with the recognition of micro-credentials. This would also, according to the IUA, allow for stacking micro-credentials into larger awards. The decision to include micro-credentials into the NQFs should, however, according to Microbol stay at national level. EUCEN further pointed out the importance of including central learning outcomes in micro-credentials and defining the level and scope of learning to allow better understanding of where the micro-credential is positioned in the continuum of learning and in the EQF.

The KU Leuven Association sees the transferability of certification as essential. They see the inclusion of micro-credentials into the ECTS as imperative. However, they argue that ECTS should not be opened up to non HEI-organisations since this could undermine its good reputation. Microbol agrees that this poses a challenge but suggests that HEIs and the private sector should cooperate on defining learning outcomes and workload associated with ECTS. Una Europa argues that HEIs should be given maximum flexibility in determining the number of credits per micro-credential, rather than setting a maximum and minimum number of ECTS from the start. The STACQ Project recommends non-formal providers to make an indirect reference to the Bologna tools where is it not legally possible for them to adopt them.

34Quality assurance

Microbol names internal and external quality assurance as one of the key commitments of the Bologna process. In the context of micro-credentials, they firmly place the responsibility of QA with the education providers. Microbol thus wants to design a set of key considerations for internal QA of micro-credentials. They note, however, that while all micro-credentials should be subject to internal QA, a programme level evaluation procedure would be too elaborate to follow for each course. They therefore suggest an institutional evaluation process. Microbol further recommends involving learners in all steps of development and implementation of micro-credentials, including in the QA processes. Alumni’s feedback should be taken into account as part of the improvement of micro-credentials. They deem it important that HEIs provide transparent information on the QA mechanisms for awarded micro-credentials, for instance on their websites. The STACQ Project further recommends that national QA agencies can include modular learning in their external review procedures of HEI.

The KU Leuven Association emphasised that in order to maintain micro-credentials’ flexibility, quality assurance should sit at the institutional level rather than with an external control mechanism. Bildungsnetzwerk Magdeburg also supports the decentralisation of micro-credential governance and quality assurance. They argue that the specific quality systems of the diverse sectors using micro-credentials will fill the gap left by a centralised and hierarchical system of traditional credentials like diplomas.

Further recommendations going forward

Stakeholders provided some suggestions in relation to:

1.Legislation

2.Institutions for development, training, and coordination

3.Quality Assurance

4.Increased and sustained funding

5.Collaboration

6.Technological tools

35Legislation

According to the ENLIGHT University Alliance it is essential to explore whether the changes in member states’ legislation are needed for supporting flexible lifelong learning opportunities across EU member states.

Microbol wants to explore the possibility to have a public overview table where countries can share where they are in terms of legislation, to have an overview of the state of play in the EHEA.

36Institutions for development, training, and coordination

In addition to the dissemination of the rules for the recognition and awarding of micro-credentials, EC2U called for arranging and promoting training actions for course directors and coordinators, directors of academic services and international relations at European universities. Both the EC2U and the ENLIGHT University Alliances suggested instigating coordinating bodies for the implementation of micro-credentials. National focal points could clarify any doubts about the implementation of micro-credentials from a European perspective and carry on the national dissemination of this new complementary educational tool. A body at European level could set the criteria for micro-credentials. University Alliances, they argue, can act as lighthouses for cross-regional recognition. Microbol further recommends involving learners in all steps of development and implementation of micro-credentials. This is backed by the Danish Student Union, the ESU and ANOSR who call for active user involvement. Particularly among young people and students, they argue, there is a need for active participation opportunities in development and implementation to ensure ownership of the initiative among users. ESU calls for a central approach with working groups and advisory committees at the ministerial level to ensure credibility and uniformity.

37Quality assurance

Microbol recommends establishing a register of trustworthy providers as a tool for supporting acceptance and recognition of micro-credentials. Being listed in the register should become a de-facto ‘label’ of adherence to the ESG and the European framework for micro-credentials. At European level, they suggest, DEQAR could serve as the register of providers, since its scope is to cover all providers and provision aligned with the ESG. At national and regional level, existing registers might be extended, or specific ones could be created.

38Increased and sustained funding

Stakeholders largely agree on the necessity for more active financial involvement of the European Commission in the field of micro-credentials. The ECIU University considers support for a sustained and focused campaign of awareness building and piloting of micro-credentials as a key for micro-credentials’ success. The EUA agrees that for a proper uptake of micro-credentials, learners need to have access to relevant information about the contents, the quality, the learning outcomes and the recognition of these learning activities. The employers need to understand what these credentials mean, what their value is, and how they compare with conventional programmes and qualifications.

The ECIU University also sees the need for targeted funding to foster innovation in the field of micro-credentials. This has to be coupled by direct investments in institutional taught leadership and awareness building amongst the myriad of stakeholders to progress and harness the micro-credentials movement further.

The IUA sees investment in research and evaluation as essential to understand the skill demands of the labour market on one hand and track progress made on the other. MBO Raad and others have also pointed towards the importance of collecting statistical data on micro-credentials in Europe to assess trends and development trajectories in the VET/Further Education sector.

The IUA also calls for freeing up state-funding as for instance practiced in Scotland, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Reducing the costs for the learner, they argue, would limit barriers to uptake. They suggest a voucher-style system directed at both learner or employer to stimulate interest in micro-credentials, help target priority sectors, and mitigate against inequality of opportunity. KU Leuven Association also points towards just financing mechanisms as essential.

EURASHE believes that the forthcoming Council Recommendation should extensively discuss the opportunities for higher education institutions’ support from the European Commission, addressing the worries that they may face on a national level regarding the implementation and financing of micro-credentials, as well as support for institutional capacity development for full use of micro-credentials potential. In line of this, EURASHE is ready to contribute to the further harmonisation and coordination of the European standard of micro-credentials across Europe and engage with relevant stakeholders, as well as to commit to the further activities developing the concept and capacity-building of the PH institutions for various flexible provisions within the life-long learning concept.

Bildungsnetzwerk Magdeburg sees a funding role for Erasmus+ in order to expand micro-credentials beyond HE and VET fields, especially focusing on youth and adult non-formal education.

39Collaboration

There seems to be a general strong desire for more collaboration on micro-credentials both between HEIs and with the private sector. Microbol highlights the importance of peer exchange and support, involving all actors at national and international level. They suggest for instance the co-development of micro-credentials between institutions, students, and employers. They also highlight the relationship with research where micro-credentials could support knowledge transfer. The UCC sees the engagement of the private sector as a prerequisite for the longevity of micro-credentials and suggests a European-wide industry engagement, perhaps on a sectoral basis.

The University of Helsinki points towards the benefits of national and international cooperation among universities to pool resources. European Universities and alliances such as Una Europa and Unite! market themselves as test beds for this since there is already mutual trust and respect in each other’s (QA) practices, facilitating and supporting stackability, portability, and mutual recognition. However, the university of Helsinki argues, decision to deliver micro-credentials should remain at a single university level and/or their alliances and be based on their strategic vision. Una Europa points out that offering micro-credentials as an alliance of universities offers a range of benefits, as the offer can be stronger, broader and more interdisciplinary by combining different universities’ complementary strengths and expertise. Flexible learning paths within an alliance can be created by integrating jointly developed micro-credentials or those offered by partners into existing courses and programmes. The links with different universities also increase the learners’ potential to go into further studies in different countries, contributing to a mobile workforce.

Una Europa further notes that European University Alliances are supported by a range of local and regional stakeholders, such as local and regional authorities, companies and NGOs from local innovation ecosystems, which ensures that the offer is in line with training needs and the interests of different learners across Europe. They see European Universities as frontrunners in creating a transparent network at European level to ensure alignment, comparability, exchangeability and transferability of micro-credentials. Lastly, they call for increased collaboration with international partners.

EURASHE urges the European Commission to install a cluster of European experimentation and practice laboratories where multistakeholder groups of actors from research, practice and policy can develop demonstrable good practices for a set of defined contexts to close the gap between policy objectives at European level and the institutional realities in the MS. For instance, the ECIU University suggests developing a European Degree that would have micro-credentials in its core and therefore offer more flexible and personalized learning paths. ECIU University is willing to offer support for the European Commission in terms of knowledge and expertise: they specifically mention the Research Observatory on Micro-credentials at the Dublin City University as a leading institution in the research on micro-credentials.

The KU Leuven Association states that for micro-credentials to successfully boost innovation and fill skills gaps, institutions of higher education are to work together with businesses, sector organisations, non-profits, governments etc. In the light of those collaborations, micro-credentials are not an exclusive territory of HEIs.

40Technological tools

ETBI recommends the dissemination of ICT to ensure uptake of micro-credentials as they see a lack of access to the needed technology as one of the main barriers inhibiting people from taking micro-courses. Unite! also argues for a strong focus on digital technologies to provide flexible and accessible learning opportunities.

Experiences with micro-credentials

The IUA is leading a €12.3 million five-year multi-campus project on micro-credentials. It aims to develop a National Framework for micro-credentials, create a model for enterprise engagement, design a Discovery platform for marketing micro-credentials to learners, and develop a suite of micro-credentials. These cover levels 7-10 of the Irish NQF (levels 6-8 on the EQF). Each micro-credential will have a specified credit size drawn from a sliding scale of 1-30 ECTS. The micro-credentials are standalone awards or may be stacked into larger qualifications.

CEU Cardenal Herrera announced they would hold an International Week during the course 2021‐2022, with the aim of provoking knowledge advancement and sharing experiences in the application of micro-credentials in universities around the world.

EPICUR will develop an inclusive gamification framework in order to reward student’s activities. This framework will be used in order to motivate and steer the students to choose and follow meaningful learning pathways by exploiting the concepts of Badges and Nano-Credentials in order to create stackable Micro-Credentials.

The KU Leuven Association is currently experimenting with joint interdisciplinary micro-credentials.

Una Europa offers a micro-module on sustainability, where a large number of stackable and independent MOOCs are published and made available to participants, allowing them to build individual learning paths. Learners who want to earn credits must register through one of the participating universities.

41Civil society

24 civil society organisations submitted position papers: 16 NGOs, one youth organisation, and seven vocational education organisations. They all welcome the European Commission’s proposition of micro-credentials, identifying their potential to serve as tools of inclusion, responsiveness to the ever- changing needs within the labour market and contribution towards achieving Principle one of the European Pillar of Social Rights and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However as other stakeholders discussed thus far, in some areas, they differ in relation to their ideal visions of micro-credentials.

Key findings

·Civil society stakeholders considered that micro-credentials can be a powerful tool in widening access an inclusion to formal education and training, it should be seen as a complementary and not a replacement.

·There is a need for clarity and transparency in how micro-credentials are defined, recognised and valued to ensure micro-credentials are accessed, trusted and respected.

·Micro-credentials can and should also be used as a tool to widen access to employment, lifelong learning and the professionalisation of skills.

·Civil society organisations are absent from key processes in the development of micro-credentials. They should be involved in as many aspects of as possible, especially the design and implementation of micro-credentials given their role as advocates and their proximity to intended beneficiaries.

Definition

Overall, few organisations directly address the Commission’s working definition in their papers, though where there is reference to it, the Commission’s intention to define the concept of micro-credentials is generally welcomed, due to an identified need for enhancing clarity on this respect.

The International Council on Badges and Credentials (ICoBC) agrees with the definition proposed by the Commission. Other organisations such as the European Training Foundation (ETF), ENGIM, The Groningen Declaration Network (GDN), the Lifelong Learning Platform (LLLP) and the European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA) however, highlight the need for enhanced clarity. LLLP and EAEA call for a definition that is unique to micro-credentials, easily transferrable across Member States, and clear in the fact micro-credentials do not replace traditional qualifications. ETF support this view on the need for clarity and a commonly agreed understanding of what micro-credentials are and the components supporting their quality, transparency and uptake.

On the other hand, Chain 5 disagree with the need for a general definition that is applied to all sectors, warning that it will be a difficult, frustrating and time-consuming process. Instead, they suggest adopting an umbrella concept such as ‘CompCoin’ where each issuing party decides for itself the name of its micro-credential for example micro-credential-HE or micro-credential-VET, its format and its value. Though for structure, each issuing party the category its micro-credential falls under based on simple characteristics. GDN however notes that without a clear definition, it is difficult to recognise and value micro-credentials, and thus applauds the Commission’s goal of establishing a clear and concise definition.

In terms of proposed amendments to the definition, LLLP and EAEA call for the synergies between a European approach to micro-credentials and the Council Recommendation on Validation of non-formal and informal learning when defining European micro-credentials. Cazalla Intercultural, NGO Creativitas, the Lithuanian Association of Non-Formal Education (LiNA), Madiba and Skills Connect suggest the inclusion of more types of micro-credentials that could represent more diversity in learning and achievements, for example membership, participation, motivation, contribution and other accomplishments.

GDN have specific suggestions on the wording for the definition. They suggest the inclusion of five dimensions to the micro-credential definition, namely, learner autonomy, trust, a focus on learning outcomes, interoperability, and portability. The inclusion of these dimensions requires that the micro-credential definition:

·recognises of the unique value of micro-credentials as enablers of learner autonomy, agency, and control (learner autonomy)

·emphasises that micro-credentials are trusted and based on transparently evident quality assured policies and practices by using terminology that emphasises commitments by each actor to quality assured policies and practices, trusted sources, and trusted and secure formats and channels for data transfer (trust)

·explicitly recognises its focus on learner outcomes enhancing the understanding of what the credential is (learner outcomes)

·commits to portability understanding that it is inseparably linked to learner autonomy, agency, and control and data privacy. Here, it is noted that though there are many technology solutions to portability, some are yet to be determined so no technology should form part of the definition.

·highlights the importance of using interoperable standards for data exchange while respecting regional autonomy and authority enabled by interoperable systems and best practice standards for data sharing. GDN feel that Europe is well positioned here given its work with ESBI and other related initiatives.

Role of micro-credentials

In terms of the role of micro-credentials, civil society organisations referred to their:

1.Place in higher education

2.Role in inclusion and flexibility

3.Role in qualifications frameworks

42Place in higher education

LLLP, EAEA and AONTAS highlight the fact that though micro-credentials are valuable, they do not replace traditional qualifications. AONTAS argues we must avoid using micro-credentials as a substitute or a short-term solution for “the tertiary education system’s failure to adequately include and support disadvantaged learners to access and succeed in formal learning, especially in higher education settings that still do not fully represent the social and economic diversity of our societies”. 6 Similarly, LLLP and EAEA share their concern over the premise that micro-credentials can be the solution to inequalities in education and training. In their view, micro-credentials should be a complementary tool only, and should not replace full study programmes and the development and implementation of measures to ensure equal access to education. They highlight the need for a comprehensive public investment and a holistic approach to education in light of the COVID-19 pandemic aftermath. In their view, micro-credentials are only a contribution to this process.

43Role in Inclusion and flexibility

In terms of the role that micro-credentials can play in facilitating increased access and inclusion within education and training, AONTAS welcomes micro-credentials as a means to increase access and equal benefits to the most marginalised adult learners in all forms of tertiary education. In their view, micro-credentials must be empowering in their design. In their statement, AONTAS echoes EAEA’s submissions that micro-credentials could be used as a tool to “boost access and participation to lifelong learning by bringing more flexibility to the learning pathways and personalised learning thanks to the modular approach and portability of credits,” 7 attracting larger and more diverse numbers of learners and continuous professional development.

Specific beneficiary groups highlighted in the position papers include mothers, who in the view of Make Mothers Matter (MMM) tend to take on care-giving roles and subsequent career break. MMM believe they would benefit from flexible ways of skilling and reskilling for example through the recognition and validation of caregiving experience. AGE Platform Europe (AGE) indicate the need for the inclusion of older people, who are often forgotten in policies fostering life-long learning and education. LLLP and EAEA focus on learners that cannot always access other types of qualifications such as migrants and refugees. They had hoped to see disadvantaged groups mentioned in the Commission’s report as their access to education in Europe through micro-credentials needs to be explored fully and considered.

In terms of specific sectors, EFFE encourage the Commission to consider personal and household service workers (PHS) and the use of micro-credentials to develop learning pathways for the professionalisation of the PHS sector. They cite France and the Netherlands as examples of success within this area and urge for this to be considered by the Commission. The education sector and the inclusion of educators as a target group is raised by Lie Detectors, to enable teachers to improve their media literacy to enhance their classes with the involvement of critical media literacy. The European Association of Service providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD) call for the inclusion of person with disabilities to be included as a key target for micro-credentials as an aid for development of their personality, talents and creativity, mental and physical abilities and participation in society.

44Role in qualification frameworks

AONTAS calls for a more comprehensive discussion around the fact that some national qualification frameworks do not permit the inclusion of non-formal qualifications (NQF), hindering the full actualisation of micro-credentials and the resulting equitable outcomes. This is because excluding the crucial early experiences of learners in relation to education in non-formal settings, opposes the aims and spirit of national policies designed for inclusion and the objectives of the European Agenda for Adult Learning and its surrounding policy frameworks, for example the Pillar of Social Rights and SDG four. AONTAS argue there needs to be explicit naming and recognition of NFE and its significance. They encourage the Commission to explicitly state the parity of esteem and equal weight between non-formal learning and the other mutually important constituents of tertiary education provision.

Recognition and portability

Regarding recognition and portability, civil society organisations referred to:

1.Quality assurance

2.Portability

3.Providers

1.Quality assurance

Where recognition and portability is discussed, all organisations agree with the need for change in this regard. The EFFE expresses the need for the EU to value learning outcomes in a clear and transparent way as currently this is a barrier to cultivating trust in micro-credentials and the realisation of its full potential. Survey results shared in the ETF position paper reveals ‘the lack of specific regulations and agreed quality assurance framework’ as the main concern of stakeholders. Based on these findings, ETF encourage the alignment of micro-credentials with existing quality assurance processes, instruments, and contexts. AONTAS and The Blockchain Ireland Working Group for Education, Skills and Innovation (WGESI) however, argue that a list of trusted providers, social partners and civil society organisations that work closest with adult learners and their communities should be involved in the development of such guidelines. The European Youth Forum’s report on validation highlights the importance of involving those with the closest access to beneficiaries in the designing process.

Iperia, in its position paper, expressed a similar attitude advocating for more freedom when it comes to individualisation of micro-credentials and the ways they may be awarded. First, it should be possible to validate micro-credentials through training, VAE, but also in the workplace. Second, micro-credentials must be part of a certification path logic. It must be a training unit which makes it possible to bridge the gap between different certifications and which is integrated in a broader acquisition of competence, up to the formal education title. Third, micro-credential’s scale must be able to be adaptable to specific skills and contexts in which it would be awarded.

Junior Achievements Europe (JA Europe) suggest the creation of an independent body to certify micro-credentials in order to ensure alignment of the criteria and assessment of all micro-credentials. However, Cazalla Intercultural, NGO Creativitas, the Lithuanian Association of Non-Formal Education (LiNA), Madiba and Skills Connect argue that the governance and Quality Assurance (QA) of micro-credentials needs to be decentralised to enable sectors to develop quality systems as opposed to the centralised and hierarchical system of more traditional credentials. Similarly, LLLP advises applying caution when approaching QA standards as often these are too rigid for non-formal learning providers. LLLP supports a more learner centred approach.

2.Portability

Regarding portability, Cazalla Intercultural, NGO Creativitas, the Lithuanian Association of Non-Formal Education (LiNA), Madiba and Skills Connect encourage the transferability of micro-credentials across different sectors to allow people accumulate their experience in diverse fields. They also call for Europass Digital Credentials Infrastructure (EDSI) to add micro-credentials such as Open Badges which have already been issued in a secure way, while JA Europe call for the Formal recognition of Entrepreneurial Skills Pass (ESP) micro-credentials.

WGESI, states that there is the need for stackability as described by the European Consortium of Innovative Universities (ECIU). This enables certificates to accumulate into a larger credential or degree or form a portfolio of one’s learning. It should be noted however, that WGESI call for a clear differentiation between traditional degrees and micro-credential certificates delivered upon completion of a learning programme. ETF also reported stackability mainly in relation to the ability of credentials to add an international dimension to an individual’s portfolio among the most rated preferences by HEIs.

3.Providers

EFFE note the fact that the Commission’s roadmap seems to focus mainly on the recognition of learning pathways provided by EU providers such as European Universities. In their view, other training and certification providers mainly VET, life-long learning and adult learning should be included also.

LLLP, AONTAS and EASD strongly argue that civils society organisations are missing in the involvement of micro-credentials and they should be involved not only in the design and implementation stage but also in the ability to issue micro-credentials as they are often advocating for the learners and citizens.

Experience with micro-credentials

Some of the organisations speak of their own experience with micro-credentials. Cazalla Intercultural, NGO Creativitas, the Lithuanian Association of Non-Formal Education (LiNA), Madiba and Skills Connect have extensive experience and expertise in the use and promotion of digital open badges, which have been identified as a global standard for micro-credentials.

ENGIM, started using Open Badges in November 2020, first for single thematic in-depth seminars and then creating a structured certification system with open badges to aid the development of professional skills nationally and internationally. Soft skills, innovation skills and hard skills can be attained.

Supported by the European Commission, JA Europe also developed the Entrepreneurial Skills Pass (ESP) tool, a unique international qualification that certifies the entrepreneurial experience of students aged 15-19. In 2013, 9 countries had implemented the ESP in Europe. Now in 2021, more than 40 countries in 5 different regions (Europe, Middle East, Africa, South America, USA) utilise this tool. For JA Europe, it is essential that both national education authorities, and higher education institutions formally recognise micro-credentials such as ESP to ensure an even wider adoption. In their view, European Universities are well placed to endorse the ESP and become ambassadors.

Further recommendations going forward

AGE recommends that credentials are output oriented making it clear the new competencies that the learner has attained as opposed to focusing on process i.e., the hours and amount of work involved. In their view, this is a more useful validation of skills acquired. In the context of PHS workers, EFFE call for financing the validation of labour-market oriented micro-credentials that targeting specific sectors affected by labour shortage such as the PHS sector.

AGE also acknowledge the benefits of digitisaton as a way to increase access. However, they recommend that when designing micro-credentials, emphasis is placed on collective experiences formed and the building of new networks as this is a key driver in learning. Supporting this argument, ETF highlight the fact that according to their survey results, digitisation is one of the least concerns of micro-credential stakeholders.

Cazalla Intercultural, NGO Creativitas, the Lithuanian Association of Non-Formal Education (LiNA), Madiba and Skills Connect and JA Europe recommend the recognition of micro-credentials beyond higher education and employment into areas where it is widely used, such as life-wide and lifelong learning including personal development and volunteering. They call for micro-credential funding priorities to reflect this inclusion and expansion of scope, additionally recommending the adjustment of Erasmus+ funding priorities. AGE recommends an expansion in funding that targets all forms of learning both online and offline.

JA Europe further develop their argument recommending the possibility for any training provider to develop and issue micro-credentials. LLLP is in agreement with this, adopting the position that micro-credentials should be extended to non-formal education providers also making reference to the Scout movement that has pioneered open badges. They recommend the inclusion of civil society organisations (including youth organisations and volunteer organisations) in the development of micro-credentials.

For the inclusion of disadvantaged groups, EASPD recommends the provision of appropriate training to micro-credential Providers incorporating, disability awareness and the use of appropriate augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication, educational techniques, and materials to support persons with disabilities

Fundamentally, Cazalla Intercultural, NGO Creativitas, the Lithuanian Association of Non-Formal Education (LiNA), Madiba and Skills Connect and ETF recommend cooperation and the good practice exchange in the EU and Neighbouring Countries in relation to micro-credentials.

45Individual scientific contributions

Seven position papers consisted of extracts or full-length pieces of scientific research.

The first article (title: “Digital Open Badge-Driven Learning – Practical Applications to Support Validation of Prior Learning”) is an abridged version of the author’s doctoral dissertation. It attempts to demonstrate the merits of applying the competence-based approach, digital open badges and gamification in professional development to meet individual needs for working life. In addition, it represents the current state of emerging national ecosystems related to open badges in Finland. The author also advocates for the development of standards and guidelines on a national and European level suitable to foster the pro-open badges climate. However, the author is well aware that it is first necessary to provide training in digital pedagogical competences for trainers, so that they may be able to apply the competence-based approach in practice. The article concludes with a list of recommendations on how to structure digital open badge-driven learning process grounded on the badge constellation of competences.

The second article (title: “Towards a 21st Century Personalised Learning Skills Taxonomy”) touches on one of the dilemmas of contemporary education: the existence of a significant gap between the requirements specified within higher education qualifications and the requirements sought by employers. They authors explore current efforts to address this challenge, primarily through STEM examples that apply within the UK and EU and then present their own take on the issue by recommending the usage of a 21st Century (C21) skills taxonomy. The concept of C21 Skills Hours as a new input measurement for learning within qualifications is introduced, and an illustrative example is presented to show the C21 skills taxonomy in action. The article concludes with a discussion of how such a taxonomy can also be used to support a micro-credentialing framework that aligns to existing competency frameworks, enabling formal, non-formal and informal learning to all be recognized. A C21 Skills taxonomy can therefore be used to bridge the gap between capability (input) and competency (output), providing a common language both for learning and demonstrating a skill. According to the authors, this approach has profound implications for addressing current and future skills gaps as well as for supporting a transition to more personalised learning within schools, colleges and universities and more lifelong learning both during and outside of employment.

The third article (title: “Micro-credentials: statement”) describes the societal reliance on proprietary software providers (e.g. Microsoft). According to the author, this situation leads to the brain drain: as digital technology does not require own infrastructure and the IT staff that manages it, the young, talented people tend to migrate abroad to large datacenters, where their knowledge and skills can be applied. For this reason, it is argued that the EU should take a good step closer to accelerating digital development and creating a technological free market that truly supports innovation, the creation of modern technologies. The author concludes that there is an Open Source and Free Software Association in Estonia that can help develop and implement necessary solutions.

The fourth article (no title) is a collection of data sent by the Polish Educational Research Institute that includes aggregated responses to the Commission’s questionnaire on micro-credentials. However, the article does not contain any description of the methodology (e.g. who took part in the survey?), and therefore it is difficult to extract any useful findings from it.

The fifth article (title: “φορητοσ <δια βιου> ατομικοσ εκπαιδευτικοσ λογαριασμοσ <φ.α.ε.λ>”) describes Greek experiences related to micro-credentials and the setting up of “personal learning accounts”. The article seems to be incomplete.

The sixth article (title: “Credential fluency: measuring human ability in a brave new world”) is a theoretical analysis from the African perspective on how to measure human ability by using modern technology. They view credential fluency as a future state wherein human ability is measured and recognised in a seamless and digital manner. The authors argue that in order to achieve credential fluency, a more interdisciplinary approach is needed. This requires: 1) the development of a construct of semantic interoperability; 2) the development of a construct of data privacy and ownership, and; 3) common taxonomy for the measurement and recognition of human ability.

The seventh article (title: “Children and the internet: Learning, in the times to come”) examines what kind of pedagogical and physical environments are required to enable children to learn in the post pandemic world. The author presents potential new scenarios for schools and homes with a special emphasis on the role of the internet in children’s learning. New methods for assessment and certification are also described to complete a framework for children’s education that would fit for purpose for our times.

46Annex : List of stakeholders that submitted position papers

Stakeholder Group	Subgroup	Individual Stakeholders
Public Authorities	National Governments	Italian Government (Ministry of Labour and Social Policies) Finnish Government (Ministry of Education and Culture of Finland) French Government (Représentation permanente de la France auprès de l'Union européenne) Government of Slovenia Dutch Government German Government Government of Malta Government of Czechia Norwegian Government (The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research)
	Regional/Local Governments	Lisbon City Council Flemish Education Council Government of Navarra Flemish Ministry of Education and Training
	Government Agencies	Spanish Accreditations and Certifications Taskforce The Netherlands House for Education and Research (Neth-ER) Skills Norway UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA)
Industry	Business Associations	Austrian Chamber of Commerce (ACC) EUROCHAMBRES Réseau des chambres de métiers et de l’artisanat (CMA) (network of chambers of trades and crafts) Chamber of Commerce Luxembourg
	Labour/Trade Unions	Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund DGB (Confederation of German Trade Unions) European Trade Union Committee for Education (ETUCE) Farm Tech Society (FTS) Federation of Education Workers FLC (Italy) IndustriALL Global Union European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) Danish Trade Union Confederation (FH)
	Employers	Bund Deutscher Arbeitgeber BDA (German employers‘ association) Arbeitgeberverband Gesamtmetall M+E (Federation of German Employers' Associations in the Metal and Electrical Engineering Industries) Confederation of Danish Employers (DA) Federation of European Social Employers (FESE) Google Mouvement des Entreprises de France SME United _ Craft and SMEs in Europe
Civil Society	Non-Governmental Organisations	AGE Platform Europe Cazalla Intercultural Creativitas European Federation for Family Employment & Home Care (EFFE) The European Mentoring & Coaching Council (Emicro-credentialC) ENGIM European Training Foundation (ETF) Groningen Declaration Network (GDN) The International Council on Badges and Credentials (ICoBC) Junior Achievement Europe (JA Europe) Lie Detectors Lithuanian association of non-formal education (LiNA) Lifelong Learning Platform (LLLP) Madiba Make Mother’s Matter (MMM) The Blockchain Ireland Working Group for Education, Skills and Innovation (WGESI)
	Youth organisations	European Youth Forum
	Vocational Education organisations	Iperia AONTAS Chain5 The European Association for the Education of Adults (EAEA) The European Association of Service providers for Persons with Disabilities (EASPD) The Swedish Association for Open and Distance Education (SADE) Skills Connect
Academic/research institutions	Universities	CEU Cardenal Herrera University of Helsinki University College Cork (UCC) VIA University College Denmark European Universities: ECIU EDEN EPICUR EUTOPIA
	University Alliances	EC2U ENLIGHT Una Europa
	Academic/Research Associations	Irish University Association (IUA) European University Continuing Education Network (EUCEN) European Association of Institutions in Higher Education (EURASHE) KU Leuven Association Bildungsnetzwerk Magdeburg Trade Association of Secondary Vocational Schools and Adult Education (MBO Raad) European University Association (EUA) University Network for Innovation, Technology and Engineering (Unite!)
	Project Groups	Microbol STACQ
	Student Unions	European Students’ Union (ESU) National Alliance of Student Organisations in Romania (ANOSR) National Union of Students in Denmark