1.2.2. Possible Barriers and Critical Perspective
MicroCredentials in HE are still at the early stage of development. Concomitant research is required to evaluate their effectiveness and acceptance.
As the educational ecosystem is in a state of dynamic changes, various barriers might appear and challenge the implication of MicroCredentials, e.g.:
- The belief of some learners that MCs hold less value than more traditional certifications is still prevalent. Stakeholders might need support to understand that a MC in fact offers training on current and evolving skills, as well as knowledge aligned with existing and future needs. Thus, credentialing organizations need to create awareness for the validity of their MCs. They can learn from regular feedback by stakeholders to inform the development, quality standards and communication around their MC.
- HR professionals and HE admittance offices might be hesitant to recognizing MCs in the hiring or admission process if there is no evidence of topicality and no transparent assessment. Certainly, for recognition by HE institutions and employers likewise, it is important that the quality of a MC is guaranteed and the learning outcomes are displayed in a standard providing for comparability. The reputation and institutional accreditation of the issuer might play a role as well.
Apart
from manifold barriers in the user- or issuer area of the MC ecosystem, there
are some more general critical aspects compiled by parts of the science
community and discussed within policy-maker circles. MicroCredentials are being critically appraised for various reasons:
- For one thing, it is stated that the hype for Micro-Credentialing reflects the exiguity to unbundle higher education curricula and degree programs for increased efficiency and profitability (Ralston 2021).
- On the other hand, authors see some risk observing a resurgent movement among industry and higher education leaders to reframe the HE curriculum towards vocational training (Ralston 2021). This view labels MCs as a result of neoliberal learning postulates. The purpose-free and self-directed character of learning in HE is seen in danger.
- Supporters of a critical approach also may see MCs as a tool for boosting the potential of human capital theory to manipulate HE curricula to align with ostensive world of work market requirements (Wheelan 2021). Unlike a degree program, MCs typically lack a general education approach, prioritising instead the transfer of applied knowledge and skills for serving workforce needs.
- Since industry-specific competencies are in many aspects subject to expiry, employees must constantly return to life-long learning providers to update their skill sets - and possibly muster a considerable financial contribution (Ralston 2021).
However, in spite of partial criticism, some authors see opportunities to improve the effects of the ‘MC-craze’ by reintroducing a ‘distinctly human element’ (Pollard 2022).
Accordingly, the ideas for a regulated and beneficial future Micro-Credentialing can be summarised in three activity strands:
- embed MicroCredentials into the regular curriculum,
- align them with the mission of the HE institution,
- foster and maintain a critical and reflective pedagogy.
These three aspects mirror exactly the intention of this training material for DigiProf with regard to MicroCredentials.