---

National Microcredentials
Framework
November 2021
Executive Summary
The education landscape is changing with growing demand for shorter-form courses that enable workers to
rapidly upskill and encourage lifelong learning.

Technological change coupled with rapid transformation brought about by COVID-19, have elevated the
potential for microcredentials to rapidly upskill and reskill the workforce. Even so, the microcredentials
ecosystem is disparate, lacking even a consistent definition across higher education, vocational education, and
industry.

A significant number of Federal and State Government projects are now underway to fund, trial, collate and
credentialise microcredentials. These projects define and fund microcredentials differently, and without a
clear framework, they risk embedding inconsistency into the future. Simultaneously, many providers have
developed their own credit recognition or microcredential policies. Multiple reports have recommended the
establishment of guidelines that microcredentials should follow, including the Australian Qualifications
Framework Review 2019.

A framework can help reduce complications for learners seeking to make a decision on what to learn, for
recognising bodies or providers seeking to recognise a microcredential for credit, and for employers or
professional bodies seeking to understand the learning outcomes and capabilities of employees.

While a framework is unlikely to address all questions raised by interested parties, a National
Microcredentials Framework can bring additional coherence to this ecosystem. It has been the product of
broad consultation with over 120 individuals from approximately 70 organisations, an environment scan that
included consideration of over 35 different definitions and multiple existing frameworks, and
consensus-based discussion among a Microcredentials Working Group with recognised leaders from higher
education, vocational education, and industry.

The nature of this discussion is representative of the diversity of views on microcredentials. Consensus on key
elements has been challenging, and the strong weight of opinion has been that any framework should err on
the side of minimalism to protect the flexibility and dynamism of microcredentials.

This framework seeks to respond to stakeholder inputs, and in doing so:

• sets a national definition for microcredentials.

• agrees on unifying principles for microcredentials
• establishes critical information requirements
• outlines a minimum standard for microcredentials that will sit on the Microcredentials Marketplace.
Announced in June 2020 by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, the Microcredentials
Marketplace will be a user-friendly, nationally-consistent platform that allows learners, employers and
providers to compare short courses.

2
Definition

The framework defines microcredentials as a certification of assessed learning or competency, with a

minimum volume of learning of one hour and less than an AQF award qualification, that is additional,
alternate, complementary to or a component part of an AQF award qualification.

Unifying principles

This definition is supported by a number of unifying principles; that microcredentials should be:
• Outcome-based.
• Responsive to industry-need.
• Tailored to support lifelong learning.
• Transparent and accessible.

Critical information requirements and minimum standards

A number of critical information requirements are stipulated to encourage greater consistency and portability
of all microcredentials. These requirements provide users with critical information about microcredentials,
enabling them to be better understood as a unit of exchange. They are supported by a series of minimum
standards for microcredentials that are anticipated to sit on the Marketplace.

1. Learning outcomes must be clearly stated.

2. When describing foundation or general capabilities, providers will consider the descriptors contained
within the Australian Core Skills Framework. Note that additional capability taxonomies will be
considered in a future version of this framework.
3. Microcredentials require assessment/s. This assessment/s must assess the attainment of learning
outcomes. For transparency reasons, the type of assessment/ assessment method must be clearly
stated.
4. Microcredentials are required to stipulate volume of learning and to have a minimum of one hour
volume of learning and less than that of an AQF award qualification.
5. Microcredentials will consider signifying the mastery achieved by a microcredential, where the primary
purpose of a microcredential is not credit-bearing. This can be a best-fit or estimate.
6. Where applicable, microcredentials will clearly stipulate industry-recognition, where the microcredential
is recognised by a professional body, satisfies or aligns to an industry standard or professional
development requirement, or constitutes recognition towards an industry or vendor certification.
7. Where applicable, microcredentials will clearly stipulate credit-recognition, where the microcredential is
recognised by an education institution for the provision of specified or unspecified credit or advanced
standing. This stipulation will outline the nature of the credit and the AQF level/s of the qualifications

3
 that the microcredential leads to (rather than mapping to the AQF level outcomes). Where the
microcredential is recognised for credit only when “stacked” with other microcredentials, this should be
clearly stipulated.
8. Where an issuing authority has not applied a regulated standard (i.e. the standards and academic
integrity processes applied to award courses or components within a training package) to a
microcredential, they must provide a statement of assurance of quality - e.g. a profile of the provider/
institution, a description of the quality assurance processes undertaken, and the process for review/
updating the microcredential.

It is hoped that the development and implementation of this framework in conjunction with the Marketplace
will encourage greater cohesion in the design, development and delivery of microcredentials across both the
Australian education system and broader industry.

4
Table of Contents

1.0 About this Framework 6

2.0 Approach to the Framework 7

2.1 Purpose of the Framework 8

3.0 Scope of the Framework 8

3.1 Definition 9

3.2 Unifying Principles 11

4.0 Critical Information Requirements 12

5.0 Summary of Minimum Standards on the Marketplace 15

5.1 Learning Outcomes 16

5.2 Evidence of Achievement 16

5.3 Volume of Learning 17

5.4 Depth of Learning 17

5.5 Currency and recognition 18

5.6 Quality Assurance 19

6.0 Members of the Working Group 20

5
 1.0 About this Framework

Technological change coupled with rapid transformation brought by Covid-19, has elevated the potential for
microcredentials to rapidly upskill and reskill the workforce. Even so, the microcredentials ecosystem is
disparate, lacking a consistent definition across higher education, vocational education, and industry.

A significant number of Federal and State Government projects are now underway to fund, trial and collate
microcredentials. These projects define and fund microcredentials differently, and without a clear framework,
they risk embedding inconsistency into the future. Simultaneously, many providers have developed their own
credit recognition or microcredential policies. Multiple reports have recommended the establishment of
guidelines that microcredentials should follow (to deliver a more integrated approach to build trust and gain
buy-in), including the Australian Qualifications Framework Review 2019.

A framework can help reduce complications for learners seeking to make a decision on what to learn, for
employers or professional bodies seeking to understand the learning outcomes and capabilities of employees,
and for recognising bodies or providers seeking to recognise a microcredential for credit.

In June 2020, the Australian Government announced its intention to build and operate a Microcredentials
Marketplace, a one-stop-shop for microcredentials to help students identify educational opportunities. This
Marketplace is set to allow learners to compare microcredentials and identify how they can be utilised for
additional purposes. A National Microcredentials Framework has been commissioned by the Department of
Education, Skills and Employment (DESE) for inclusion on - and to enable - this Marketplace.

The Framework aims to provide consistency and recognition of microcredentials across Australia by bringing
greater national cohesion to microcredentials, set common standards, and serve as a strong reference point
for providers, industry and learners involved in the creation, use, monitoring, or application of these
credentials.

It is envisaged that the Framework will be reviewed 12 months after its implementation. This review will
enable DESE to determine the efficacy and any revisions to the Framework.

6
 2.0 Approach to the Framework

For a National Microcredentials Framework to drive consistency and uptake, it must cater to the diverse
ecosystem of users and providers of microcredentials. In encouraging greater consistency of microcredentials,
feedback was sought in the development of the Framework from across education sectors and industry. In
this way, the Framework has been created for all microcredential users and providers, rather than for the
benefit of one education sub-sector.

Since project inception, consultations have been conducted with over 120 individuals from approximately 70
organisations, spanning higher education, vocational education, government, peak bodies, and employers.
Multiple consensus-based discussions have also been held with the Microcredentials Working Group (see
Section 6.0), a group of recognised experts from higher education, vocational education, and broader
industry. In this way, the framework is the product of significant consultation.

While stakeholders overwhelmingly agreed on issues to be covered in the framework - the depth and breadth
of learning required by microcredentials, evidence of learning and need for minimum requirements - there
was significant divergence on how these issues should be resolved. There was broad concern that a
framework risks creating over-regulation unless it remains minimalist. The need for minimalism was a
consistent thread of feedback from broader stakeholders and the Working Group.

An environment scan has also informed the development of this framework. This scan synthesised
government reviews, initiatives, and reports relevant to microcredentials, noting the current work being
undertaken to better accommodate microcredentials. It considered microcredential frameworks in other
jurisdictions, including New Zealand’s Microcredential Framework and the European Common
Microcredential Framework, the literature around microcredentials by key subject matter experts (including
the UNESCO’s Draft Preliminary Report towards a “common definition of micro-credentials”), scanned higher
education providers to consider additional microcredential credit recognition frameworks and policies, and
undertook a comparison of definitions. Where possible, the requirements in this framework have been
created with a view to encouraging interoperability with international frameworks.

7
 2.1 Purpose of the Framework

This framework has been created to provide learners, employers, and providers with guiding principles on the
development and delivery of microcredentials. Its purpose is to:

1. Enhance lifelong learning, enabling learners to make informed choices to undertake microcredentials at
their own pace and place.

2. Establish a consistent national definition for microcredentials that protects the agility and breadth of
learners, providers, and employers and encourages harmonisation between the three.

3. Provide specific guidance on critical information requirements for all microcredentials to maximise
transparency and consistency, and to further outline the standards required for microcredentials to be
on the Microcredentials Marketplace.

4. Set and agree unifying principles for all stakeholders - providers, employers and learners - for the
development and delivery of microcredentials in Australia.

5. Ensure microcredentials assist learners in acquiring additional skills by closely relating microcredential
knowledge and skills to industry needs, and resulting in further learning and potential future
employment opportunities.

3.0 Scope of the Framework

The framework covers all microcredentials designed and delivered by providers within Australia. Issuing
authorities may include industry, professional associations, higher education providers, and vocational
providers. In doing so, it recognises the diversity and breadth of these offerings, and the varied uses of
microcredentials.

For microcredentials that form part of an award course - such as vocational skill sets or modularised higher
education curricula - this framework supplements but does not replace existing education policies, including:

• The Australian Qualifications Framework.

• TEQSA’s Higher Education Standards in the TEQSA Act, Guidance Note: Credit and Recognition of Prior
Learning, and the Higher Education Standards Framework (Threshold Standards) 2021.
• The Australian Government’s National Vocational Education and Training Regulator Act 2011, and the
Standards for Registered Training Organisations (RTOs) 2015.

8
It is also noted that each institution is responsible for determining both how it issues, and recognises,
microcredentials for the purposes of academic credit and recognition of prior learning. This includes instances
where a provider decides not to apply standards to a non-award course. This framework does not seek to
abrogate that responsibility.

3.1 Definition

There has been no common definition of microcredentials in Australia. The Review of the Australian
Qualifications Framework notes the absence of a consistent definition of what a microcredential is in
Australia, preferring the term ‘shorter form credentials’ to describe the range of training that is shorter than a
qualification and not currently included in the AQF. This ambiguity has created an urgent need to standardise
the definition of a microcredential to provide more clarity and certainty to providers, learners and industry.

In drafting a consistent national definition for microcredentials, over 15 international definitions (including
one provided by the International Standard Classification of Education [ISCED]), and over 20 domestic
education providers and frameworks were reviewed. These definitions vary in a number of meaningful ways -
volume of learning, requirement for assessment, minimum standards, and expression - and finding consensus
has been challenging.

This framework uses the definition suggested by Emeritus Professor Beverley Oliver and utilised by the AQF
Review as a starting basis with additional requirements tested with the Microcredentials Working Group. It
creates a clear and consistent, albeit broad, definition for microcredentials.

While this definition includes a requirement of assessment and a minimum volume of learning of one hour,
AQF award qualifications (e.g. diplomas, undergraduate certificates) do not constitute a microcredential
under this definition.

This framework defines microcredentials as follows:

3.1.1 A microcredential is a certification of assessed learning or competency, with a minimum volume of

learning of one hour and less than an AQF award qualification, that is additional, alternate,
complementary to or a component part of an AQF award qualification.
Note: this definition should be considered in the context of the critical information requirements and minimum
standards in this framework.

9
What can constitute a microcredential?

✓ VET skill sets or units of competency.

✓ Modularised, assessed components of existing higher education curriculum or subjects.
✓ Industry learning that is assessed (such as vendor certifications, professional learning).
✓ Other forms of assessed learning or competencies (e.g. Vocational Education/ Higher Education
/Industry courses not currently accredited by a regulatory authority, and those by other providers).

What does not constitute a microcredential?

╳ Unassessed learning or courses, including work-integrated learning without an assessment.

╳ Badges which are obtained through participation only (i.e. without an assessment).
╳ Formal qualifications within the AQF and macro-credentials, including diplomas, certificates and masters
degrees.

10
 3.2 Unifying Principles

All microcredentials are encouraged to adhere to the following principles to maximise value for all parties
involved (learners, employers, education providers, industry, agencies etc.). These principles will be
instrumental in shaping a microcredential and are as follows:

Outcome-Based
Microcredentials highlight the overall learning outcomes a learner is expected to achieve
upon completion. Learners will demonstrate that they have achieved these outcomes
through a form of assessment. Assessment completed to a sufficient level identified by the
provider results in the awarding of the microcredential.

Driven by Industry Need

Microcredentials are designed and implemented with the intent of both being
learner-centric and meeting industry standards/ needs. The skills obtained by learners
upon completion of a microcredential build on a learner’s knowledge, skills or
competencies, and target industry needs/ gaps. Microcredentials can also address a more
general industry need or skill, e.g. communication, leadership.

Tailored/ Support Lifelong Learning

Microcredentials are created with the purpose of allowing learners to choose courses that
are targeted to their needs and future ambitions. Lifelong learning is increasingly
important given the growing reskilling and upskilling need caused by industry disruption,
but also given the dislocation and mental health challenges that such disruption may
cause.

Transparent and Accessible

Providers supply a set amount of information when publishing microcredentials. Aspects
such as learning outcomes, mode of delivery, expected effort, content, and modes of
assessment will be accessible/ viewable by learners prior to course initiation.

11
 4.0 Critical Information Requirements

Microcredentials are unregulated, which differentiates them from much of the education system. This has led to significant variability in quality and
transparency. Learners often compare microcredentials on the basis of incomplete information. By setting minimum standards, this framework can
enable learners to make informed decisions when choosing microcredentials. The following tables outline critical information requirements, with an
explanation of each requirement and its status, as well as those elements that are merely recommended as good practice. Providers should consider
these elements when designing microcredentials. Recommended elements have been outlined as information that may assist a learner in navigating
the Microcredentials Marketplace.

4.1.1 Critical information requirements stipulate the minimum information required for all microcredentials, not just those which will sit on the
Marketplace. These requirements will help assist learners, providers and employers in navigating the Marketplace, and understanding the
components and key information regarding microcredentials.

Figure 1: Critical Information Requirements

Element Status Description

Title Required The title of the microcredential, described in plain English.

The institution delivering the microcredential, and, if relevant, the company that developed the microcredential,
i.e. XYZ Vendor microcredential being delivered by ABC University. A provider will also include partner providers,
Provider Required
co-branding partnerships and industry endorsers. A provider is any company or institution that provides a
microcredential.
Content/ A description of the structure of the microcredential and a summary of the content that will be taught, i.e. key
Required
Description topics.

12
Learning The knowledge, skills or competencies a student will acquire upon completing a microcredential. Guidance on
Required
Outcomes these learning outcomes is outlined in Section 5.1.
The language/s of instruction in which a microcredential will be taught in/ assessed. In an attempt to recognise
Language Required interoperability and global citizenship, microcredentials may be offered in multiple languages.
The method of delivery of a microcredential, e.g. onsite, online or a combination of both, and whether the
Delivery Mode Required microcredential requires synchronous engagement or is asynchronous. Where delivery is onsite, the location(s) will
be stated.
The set relevant delivery dates (start/ end) and an outline of the schedule within these dates, or whether a
Date of Delivery Required microcredential can be completed at a learner’s own pace and commenced on any given date.
The commitment/ effort (volume of learning) required of learners. This estimate of hours should include:
i. Number of hours of in-person face-to-face contact with teaching staff.
ii. Number of hours of synchronous online contact with teaching staff.
Learner Effort Required
iii. Number of hours of peer-to-peer engagement and its mode.
iv. Estimated number of hours of asynchronous online content and reading/viewing of audiovisual material, etc.
v. Estimated number of hours spent on assessment.
Inherent The resource/s (if any) needed to undertake a specific microcredential, i.e. a laptop, specific software, textbooks
Required
Requirements etc.
Price and The cost of a microcredential to learners, including any GST, discounts stipulated by providers, government funding
Financial Required and accepted payment mechanisms i.e. AfterPay, Paypal, and scholarships. The financial assistance for which a
Assistance microcredential may qualify for.
The assessment element: the method and type of assessment (competency vs proficiency). Where assessment is
Assessment Required
onsite, the location/s will be stated.
The proof of learning outcomes being met, i.e. certificate of completion. This proof of learning is issued upon
Certification Required completion of the microcredential.
Credit/ Other The type of recognition (credit towards award courses, credit towards vendor/ industry certifications, pathways or
Required
Recognition other recognition) that can be given upon completion of a microcredential.

13
 The assurance that microcredentials are developed and delivered in an educationally sound manner for learners.
Quality Assurance Required This may be a statement of quality assurance processes applied to the microcredential such as provider or CRICOS
codes, relevant regulator, and approach to academic integrity and assessment.
The microcredential or level of experience that must be successfully completed prior to attempting to earn or
Prerequisite/s Required
complete the referenced microcredential.

Figure 2: Recommended Elements

Expiration of the The date when a microcredential is due for review and resubmission. Microcredentials should be reviewed
Recommended
Microcredential as required and appropriate, depending on the nature of content and learning outcomes.
The mastery level of a learner upon achievement of learning outcomes and completion of a
Depth of Learning Recommended microcredential, i.e. a learner has completed X microcredential which sits at novice level.
Jurisdiction Recommended The institutions or jurisdictions where the microcredential is applicable or recognised.
The assurance that microcredentials meet an industry need and reflect skills sought by employers. For
Industry Support Recommended
example, a statement of support from industry.
Recommended The microcredential/ course/ professional experience a learner is recommended to complete before
Recommended
Prior attempting to undertake the referenced microcredential.
Any other microcredentials that a microcredential combines with (stacking) that lead to an overall
Stackability Recommended certification being awarded upon completion, or entry into a further course.
Industry/ The industry/s that a microcredential sits within, and the occupations/ career pathways a microcredential
Recommended
Occupation may lead to.
Industry Industry competency framework/s that a microcredential may be aligned to, i.e. Skills Framework for the
Recommended
Alignment Information Age (SFIA), CPA.

14
 5.0 Summary of minimum standards on the Marketplace

This section outlines a number of minimum standards for microcredentials on the Microcredentials
Marketplace. While these standards apply to the Marketplace, providers are encouraged to apply them to
microcredentials more generally. These minimum standards are as follows:

5.1.1 Learning outcomes must be clearly stipulated.

5.1.2 When describing foundation or general capabilities, providers will consider the descriptors contained
within the Australian Core Skills Framework. Note that additional capability taxonomies will be considered in a
future version of this framework.

5.2.1 Microcredentials require assessment/s. This assessment/s must assess the attainment of learning
outcomes. For transparency reasons, the type of assessment/ assessment method must be clearly stated.

5.3.1 Microcredentials are required to stipulate volume of learning and to have a minimum of one hour of
volume of learning and less than that of an AQF award qualification.

5.4.1 Microcredentials will consider signifying the mastery achieved by a microcredential, where the primary
purpose of a microcredential is not credit-bearing. This can be a best-fit or estimate.

5.5.1. Where applicable, microcredentials will clearly stipulate industry-recognition, where the
microcredential is recognised by a professional body, satisfies or aligns to an industry standard or professional
development requirement, or constitutes recognition towards an industry or vendor certification.

5.5.2. Where applicable, microcredentials will clearly stipulate credit-recognition, where the microcredential
is recognised by an education institution for the provision of specified or unspecified credit or advanced
standing. This stipulation should outline the nature of the credit and the AQF level/s of the qualifications that
the microcredential leads to (rather than mapping to the AQF level outcomes). Where the microcredential is
recognised for credit only when “stacked” with other microcredentials, this should be clearly stipulated.

5.6.1 Where an issuing authority has not applied a regulated standard (i.e. the standards and academic
integrity processes applied to award courses or components within a training package) to a microcredential,
they must provide a statement of assurance of quality on the marketplace - e.g. a profile of the provider/
institution, a description of the quality assurance processes undertaken, and the process for review/ updating
the microcredential.

15
 5.1 Learning Outcomes

This section outlines a number of minimum standards for microcredentials on the Microcredentials
Marketplace. A learning outcome is a comprehensible statement of what a learner is expected to be able to
do or have acquired upon completion of a microcredential. Learning outcomes must be stipulated clearly and
kept succinct, as learners need to have a clear understanding of what is required of them upon successful
completion of the microcredential, and employers require assurances that a learner is competent and
proficient in each learning outcome. Clear and accurate descriptors can also assist recognising authorities to
identify whether learning outcomes align to existing courses and may be eligible for credit.

5.1.1 Learning outcomes must be clearly stipulated.

By enabling learners, employers and providers to understand the content of a microcredential, a consistent
taxonomy of learning outcomes would encourage greater portability of microcredentials. No taxonomy of
sufficient breadth and depth currently exists, and unless such a taxonomy were adaptive and extensive, it
would risk constraining the responsiveness and innovation of microcredentials. For this reason this approach
was not progressed within this framework.

Even so, certain performance taxonomies - for example, the Australian Core Skills Framework (ACSF) which
describes foundation, general or core skills/ capabilities - change less frequently and may be useful in drafting
learning outcome descriptors for a microcredential. For example, to achieve Reading Level 1 within the ACSF,
a reader would meet Indicator 1.03: “Identifies personally relevant information and ideas from texts on highly
familiar topics.”

5.1.2 When describing foundation or general capabilities, providers will consider the descriptors contained
within the Australian Core Skills Framework. Note that additional capability taxonomies will be considered
in a future version of this framework.

5.2 Evidence of achievement

A microcredential requires evidence that learning outcomes have been achieved. This verification builds trust
and portability, providing education providers, learners and employers with confidence that a learner has
achieved the stipulated knowledge, skills, or competencies.

5.2.1 Microcredentials require assessment/s. This assessment/s must assess the attainment of learning
outcomes. For transparency reasons, the type of assessment/ assessment method must be clearly stated.

16
 5.3 Volume of learning

Volume of learning (or ‘workload’) varies across frameworks, and institutions differ on the minimum volume
of learning required for credit recognition. Learners are diverse and can complete the same packet of learning
over different durations of time, and here volume of learning refers to the average estimated time for a new
learner with minimal experience.

Even so, there is broad agreement that estimated volume of learning is an important indicator for learners to
understand the effort and time-commitment required to complete a microcredential, and for others to
determine the relative depth of learning. The AQF defines volume of learning as “the notional duration of all
activities required for the achievement of the learning outcomes specified for a particular AQF qualification
type.”

Volume of learning should be clearly stipulated in hours. This estimate of hours should include:

I. Number of hours of in-person face-to-face contact with teaching staff.

II. Number of hours of synchronous online contact with teaching staff.
III. Number of hours of peer-to-peer engagement and its mode.
IV. Estimated number of hours of asynchronous online content and reading/ viewing of audiovisual
material etc.
V. Estimated number of hours spent on assessment.

5.3.1 Microcredentials are required to stipulate volume of learning and to have a minimum of one hour of
volume of learning and less than that of an AQF award qualification.

5.4 Depth of learning

Microcredentials may certify the attainment of skills, knowledge, and competencies at different levels of
mastery or complexity, from the most foundational to the most advanced. A significant volume of
stakeholders identified that differentiating between the ‘mastery’ of a microcredential is important for
learners and employers. There was strong feedback that the AQF - while particularly useful for educationalists
- is relatively unknown by learners and employers, and may not be relevant in the majority of instances,
where a learner is not seeking a credit-bearing credential.

17
The Working Group considered a number of different mastery levels to signify or differentiate the depth of
learning of a microcredential. These levels signify the mastery a learner will acquire upon achievement of
learning outcomes. No single model received unanimous support, however the five levels Dreyfus Model of
Skills Acquisition (Novice, Advanced Beginner, Competent, Proficient, Expert) with its broad explanation of
acquired skills a learner is expected to be competent in was widely understood.

5.4.1 Microcredentials will consider signifying the mastery achieved by a microcredential, where the
primary purpose of a microcredential is not credit-bearing. This can be a best-fit or estimate.

5.5 Currency and recognition

Microcredentials have multiple applications. These range from industry-recognised microcredentials designed
to satisfy professional learning requirements, an industry need or industry standards; pathway
microcredentials designed to enable entry into a recognised qualification or certification; or credit-bearing
microcredentials designed to provide credit towards a recognised qualification listed on the Australian
Qualifications Framework. This application may impact the type of recognition sought from a microcredential.

All stakeholders recognised that while some learners undertake microcredentials in order to obtain credit
towards a formal qualification, this is not the only - or even the main - use of microcredentials.
Microcredentials can be undertaken for industry recognition, including their alignment to industry standards
or frameworks. Where this occurs, learners need clear information about the relationship between a
microcredential and this industry-recognition.

Where a microcredential is recognised for credit, it should specify which (if any) qualifications it may
constitute credit for with the provider, and should specify which (if any) qualifications it may constitute
guaranteed credit at other providers (specified, unspecified, basis for admission) towards. Providers would be
able to add their recognition of microcredentials onto the Marketplace. It is at the discretion of providers to
award credit for microcredentials where learning outcomes are consistent with learning outcomes for units
within university degrees or other forms of education.

5.5.1. Where applicable, microcredentials will stipulate industry-recognition, where the microcredential is
recognised by a professional body, satisfies or aligns to an industry standard or professional development
requirement, or constitutes recognition towards an industry or vendor certification.

5.5.2. Where applicable, microcredentials will stipulate credit-recognition, where the microcredential is
recognised by an education institution for the provision of specified or unspecified credit or advanced
standing. This stipulation should outline the nature of the credit and the AQF level/s of the qualifications
that the microcredential leads to (rather than mapping to the AQF level outcomes). Where the
microcredential is recognised for credit only when “stacked” with other microcredentials, this should be
clearly stipulated.

18
 5.6 Quality Assurance

Quality assurance protects the integrity of the microcredentials ecosystem, by giving employers and
recognising bodies confidence in the microcredentials being delivered by an issuing authority, and by
protecting learners. While most microcredentials are unaccredited, a strong feature of stakeholder
consultations is the need to ensure this framework is minimalist.

Quality assurance measures are important and have been captured in various parts of this framework - the
requirement for clearly stipulated learning outcomes in 5.1, evidence of attainment in 5.2, and critical
information requirements (such as issuing institution, provider or CRICOS codes, relevant regulator, and
approach to academic integrity and assessment) in Section 4.

Microcredentials should be reviewed regularly (and as appropriate) by providers to ensure that

microcredentials remain relevant and updated. Providers are encouraged to stipulate quality assurance
processes on the Marketplace.

5.6.1. Where an issuing authority has not applied a regulated standard (i.e. the standards and academic
integrity processes applied to award courses or components within a training package) to a
microcredential, they must provide a statement of assurance of quality on the Marketplace - e.g. a profile
of the provider/ institution, a description of the quality assurance processes undertaken, and the process
for review/ updating the microcredential.

19
 6.0 Members of the Working Group

In developing this framework, the project team has undertaken a broad range of consultations with over 120
individuals from approximately 70 organisations.

A Microcredentials Working Group instigated by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment (DESE)
and chaired by Emeritus Professor Beverley Oliver convened periodically between July and October 2021 to
discuss and agree key elements of this framework.

This Microcredentials Working Group operated on the base of broad consensus, and key discussions were
held across this framework. Members of the Microcredentials Working Group were:
● Emeritus Prof. Beverley Oliver: Principal Consultant - Edubrief (Working Group Chair).
● Dr. Peter Beven: Director QUTeX Open Professional Education - Queensland University of Technology.
● Ms. Jenny Dodd: Interim CEO - TAFE Directors Australia.
● Ms. Danielle Donegan: Assistant Secretary - Department of Education, Skills and Employment.
● Ms. Julie Healy: Director Vocational Education and RTO Manager - TAFE QLD.
● Ms. Megan Lilly: Head Education and Training - Australian Industry Group.
● Prof. Sandra Milligan: Director of the Assessment Research Centre and Enterprise Professor - University
of Melbourne.
● Prof. Philippa Pattison: Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education - University of Sydney.
● Mr. Mike Pope: Senior Policy Advisor - Business Council of Australia.
● Ms. Bethany Pridmore: Deputy Director, Strategic Projects - Curtin University.
● Mr. Craig Robertson: CEO - Victorian Skills Authority.
● Prof. Michael Sankey: Director Learning Futures and Lead Education Architect - Charles Darwin University.
● Dr. Ratna Selvaratnam: Manager, Learning Technologies and Innovation - Edith Cowan University.
● Prof. Belinda Tynan: Provost and DVCA - Australian Catholic University.
● Mr. Troy Williams: CEO - Independent Tertiary Education Council Australia.
● Prof. Sherman Young: Interim Deputy Vice-Chancellor Education - RMIT University.

20