Toward just and equitable micro-credentials: an Australian perspective

The current historic COVID-19 Pandemic moment has thrown into sharp relief the need for flexible and rigorous higher education that meets upskilling and reskilling needs of global workforces. Discussions of micro-credentialing predate the Pandemic but have received increased focus as potentially assisting in addressing perceived skills gaps. However, not all commentators have been complimentary about the possibilities inherent in micro-credentialing. In this paper we discuss Ralston (Postdigital Science and Education 3:83-101, 2021) criticism of the microcredentialing craze as provocation to consider how equitable, thoughtful and just educative aims may be met. We address Ralston's argument that micro-credentials present an educative moral hazard by arguing that micro-credentialing will allow universities to respond quickly to changing worker educational needs rather than only offering full degrees that may not be economically viable or personally desirable for individuals. Rather, we suggest, the potential of micro-credentials lies in their pathways and potential to enhance lifelong learning and suggest that micro-credentials do not stand outside of the pedagogical ethical imperative that learning experiences should be positive and inclusive.

Automated summary

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of flexible and rigorous higher education that meets the upskilling and reskilling needs of global workforces. Micro-credentialing has been discussed as a potential solution to address perceived skills gaps, but there are varying opinions on its possibilities. This paper discusses the criticism of the micro-credentialing craze by Ralston and argues that micro-credentials can efficiently respond to changing educational needs while also enhancing lifelong learning.