Features of Micro-credential Platforms in Higher Education

Padmasheela Kiiskilä, Ahmed Hanafy and Henri Pirkkalainen

Tampere University, Tampere, Finland

Keywords: Micro-credentials, Digital Credentials, Adoption, Features, Micro-Credential Platforms, Higher Education

Institutions.

Abstract: Interest in and demand for micro-credentials in higher education institutions is on the rise. Although the

concept of micro-credentials is still evolving, they can be seen as short learning opportunities that are

accompanied by digital credentials that capture the proofs of the learning. These digital proofs of learning

range from skills and competences acquired to information whether such skills were acquired via formal or

non-formal learning activities. Micro-credential platforms are used for multiple purposes including issuing,

viewing, and storing the digital credentials. Despite the growth in the number of micro-credential platforms

in the recent years, literature is limited on the features offered by the platforms and how they are helpful for

higher education institutions and learners. To address this gap in research, we employed a qualitative approach

by semi-structured interviews and group discussions with platform providers and education experts. Our

findings resulted in 38 features that can help higher education institutions, learners, and providers understand

what kind of features are emphasized in micro-credential platforms and how they can be helpful for different

use purposes. As practical implications, the findings of this study can help higher education institutions in

considering adoption and usage of micro-credential platform.

1 INTRODUCTION

As the need for upskilling and reskilling gains

importance, micro-credentials are becoming

instrumental in the discourse of employability in 21

century (Wheelahan and Moodie, 2021).

Accordingly, one of the top priorities of the European

higher commission is that governments should aim

for a paradigm-shift on skills and lifelong learning to

drive Europe’s competitiveness and innovation

(European Commission, 2020). Micro-credentials are

positioned within this paradigm shift and can be

defined as “a qualification evidencing learning

outcomes acquired through a short, transparently-

assessed course or module” (European Commission,

2020).

Micro-credentials, as described by the European

Commission, include digital proofs of the short and

assessed learning opportunities such as course or

module. These proofs are currently discussed as

digital credentials which can include evidence of the

skills and competences acquired through the learning

opportunities. These digital credentials can relate to

both formal and non-formal learning. In higher

education institutions the learning opportunities

range from short (micro) tor long (macro), and digital

credentials can be awarded to any of these learning

opportunities. Hence, the term “micro-credentials”

has multiple meanings related to the short learning

opportunities and the proofs. Accordingly, when

discussing digital proofs, we are specifically referring

to digital credentials in the remainder of the paper.

A supporting ecosystem for micro-credentials

consists of the following: (a) an issuing organization

such as an educational institution; (b) learners

receiving them, (c) a verifying organization, such as

another educational institution (Oliver, 2019) and (d)

a micro-credential platform to issue the ensuing

digital credentials. Many micro-credential platforms

have emerged over the past years (Dimitrijevic, et al.,

2016) and their numbers are growing still. Higher

education institutions are progressively adopting

micro-credentials and are establishing micro-

credentials initiatives for them (Resei, et al., 2019).

There are at least two large initiatives occurring in

Europe that involve digital credentials. The European

Digital Credentials for Learning (EDCL) programme

offers higher education institutions an infrastructure

(or components) that can be used to manage digital

credentials. These are digital statements issued by an

Kiiskilä, P., Hanafy, A. and Pirkkalainen, H.

Features of Micro-credential Platforms in Higher Education.

DOI: 10.5220/0011030600003182

In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education (CSEDU 2022) - Volume 1, pages 81-91

ISBN: 978-989-758-562-3; ISSN: 2184-5026

organization to a learner, documenting their learning

(EDCL, 2021). This includes digital credentials for

individual learning offerings, such as degrees, and

diplomas awarded by educational institutions. The

second initiative is the European Blockchain Services

Infrastructure (EBSI) whose vision is “to leverage

blockchain to the creation of cross-border services for

public administrations and their ecosystems to verify

information and make services trustworthy” (EBSI,

2021). This initiative includes higher education

systems issuing digital credentials that are tamper-

proof and verifiable by other educational institutions.

The adoption of micro-credential platforms could

potentially support the unbundling of higher

education degree programs to address the four issues:

changing demographics, increasing the number of

opportunities for learners (Hope, 2018), countering

the decrease in popularity of academic degrees

(Ehlers, 2018) and providing learners with an

effective form of recognition for their skills and

competences (Hall-Ellis, 2016). Micro-credential

platforms play a pivotal role in facilitating the issuing,

managing, and storing of digital credentials and the

transfer of data between different stakeholders of the

ecosystem (Araújo, et al., 2017).

Although there are many micro-credential

platforms available, there is a lack of research about

how they operate and what they offer for higher

education institutions and their learners (Young, et

al., 2019). Accordingly, these institutions need a

comprehensive overview of these platforms to enable

informed decisions about which one to adopt. The

aim of this paper is to fill that research gap.

To address this issue, we asked the following

research questions: “What are the features of micro-

credential platforms and how are they helpful for

higher education institutions and learners?”

This

paper presents a qualitative study based on

conducting semi-structured interviews and group

discussions with micro-credential platform providers

and educational experts. The data were collected in

the context of European Consortium of Innovative

Universities (ECIU) project. The ECIU University is

an initiative to establish a challenge-based European

university where learners can earn micro-credentials

from successfully taking part in real-life challenges

and learning offerings. One of the main objectives of

the project is to adopt a suitable platform for

managing and issuing micro-credentials.

As a key contribution, we identify 38 micro-

credential platform features in 12 categories that can

help higher education institutions, learners and

providers understand the types of features that are

emphasized in micro-credential platforms and how

they can be helpful for different use purposes.

The remainder of the article is structured as

follows. Section 2 presents the theoretical

background related to micro-credentials and

platforms issuing them. Section 3 provides a

description of the research methodology and the

findings on the features of micro-credential platforms

are presented in section 4. Finally, section 5 presents

a discussion on how higher education institutions and

learners can benefit from micro-credential platforms,

followed by the contributions, limitations, and future

research topics.

2 MICRO-CREDENTIALS

2.1 Overview of Micro-credentials

Micro-credentials have been the subject of broad and

current interest in higher education over the course of

the last decade (Kilsby & Fountain, 2019). Moreover,

many higher education institutions around the world

are experimenting with micro-credentials and are

establishing micro-credentialing programs (Milligan

& Kennedy, 2017). One major issue that arises when

establishing these programs is the confusion and lack

of common understanding around the concept of

micro-credentials (Rossiter & Tynan, 2019).

As described by the European Commission

micro-credentials can be seen as a combination of the

following: (a) short learning experiences (i.e., micro

learning opportunities) and (b) digital credentials

issued for the short learning experiences that

highlight the skills and competences acquired. Based

on this perspective, digital credentials are considered

as the certified skills, competences and achievements

that prove that learners completed the necessary

activities and met the required. In this paper, we focus

on digital credentials as proof of learning,

competences, and achievements (Oliver 2019; Tracey

2014) and the corresponding micro-credential

platforms that are used to manage digital credentials

irrespective of whether they relate to learning

opportunities that are short (micro) or long (macro).

According to one study (Fong et.al., 2016), micro-

credentials initiatives have almost doubled between

2016 and 2017. Further, three in every four higher

education institutions regard micro-credentials as

strategically important for their future (Fong, et al.,

2016). Higher education institutions have realized

that employers need to know the specific skills and

competences that a potential employee possesses

(Hope, 2018). While traditional degrees, certificates,

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

and transcripts fail to convey this information, micro-

credentials render this possible and manageable.

The diversity of learners’ demographical

composition and needs, in addition to the rise of non-

traditional learners makes it nearly impossible for

higher education institutions to adopt one model that

fits all learners (Soares, 2013). For example, some

learners prefer to take part in competence-based

courses where they acquire very specific skills that

are recognized, as opposed to traditional degrees.

Further, some learners might prefer to obtain a

traditional degree while others might prefer to attend

university part-time. This is why higher education

institutions need to have different offerings for

different learners (Beilby, 2018). Micro-credentials

increase the opportunities available for learners and

provide increased flexibility within education

(Bradley, et al., 2018; Hope, 2018). In particular, they

provide learners the flexibility to individualize their

experience and learn at their own pace (Crow, 2016).

Digital credentials facilitate the unbundling of

higher education by providing an efficient alternative

to traditional credentials (Ehlers, 2018). By awarding

learners with digital credentials that specifically

describe the skills, competences, and achievements

they acquired using relevant metadata, higher

education institutions can empower learners to

demonstrate their abilities effectively to potential

employers. (Hope, 2018).

Driven by digitalization and the need for faster

and more secure ways of sharing credentials, the

European Commission is co-creating infrastructures

that will allow institutions to issue digital, tamper-

proof credentials. These include diplomas, proofs

from both formal and non-formal education, and

certificates of participation. As mentioned

previously, the EDCL and EBSI represent some of the

latest examples of such new major initiatives to

enable large-scale adoption of digital credentials. As

the demand to issue digital credentials increases, it

will be imperative for higher education institutions to

take a much closer look at the available platforms and

their features to make informed decisions on their

adoption.

2.2 Features of Micro-credential

Platforms

Over the last few years, multiple micro-credential

platforms have surfaced. Further, their number and

the variety of features offered are constantly

increasing. However, the literature regarding the

platforms is limited and many of the insights related

to them only exist only in white papers, and blogs.

Table1 presents a compiled list of features from

the current literature. The list includes platforms that

can issue badges related to non-formal or

extracurricular learning as well as platforms that can

associate with formal learning, such as the European

Credit Transfer and Accumulation System (ECTS)

bearing courses from accredited study programs or

institutions. The platforms discussed in the literature

vary in both the number and depth of features.

Table 1: Features of micro-credential platforms in the

literature.

Features Author

Create templates for

credentials

(AK Rottmann, 2021)

Visual development of

badges

(Casilli, 2013)

Support standard frameworks (Rehak & Hickey, 2013)

Search and view existing

micro-credentials

(Devedzic & Jovanovic,

2015; Goligoski, 2012)

offerings

(SCLDA, 2014)

Integrity verification (Grant, 2016)

Store and manage micro-

credentials

(Glover, 2013)

Importing micro-credentials

from other platforms

(Dimitrevic et.al, 2016)

Interactive visualization of

micro-credentials

(Charleer et.al, 2013)

Validating micro-credentials (Hickey & Otto, 2017)

Assessment (both automatic

and expert)

(Carey and Stefaniak, 2018;

Grant 2016))

Peer awarded credentials

(O’Connor, 2013)

Common features discussed in the literature

include creating, storing, and managing digital

credentials. Some platforms offer search functionality

in addition to the ability to view all the credentials

learners accrue (Devedzic & Jovanovic, 2015; Glover

and Latif, 2013). In addition, some platforms offer

extensions to these features, including the ability to

customize credentials, support standard frameworks

(Openbadges), and import credentials from other

platforms. In the future, they might expand to offer

recommendations of relevant study offerings and

courses to students (Dimitrevic et.al, 2016;

Rehak&Hickey, 2013; Rottmann, 2021)

Features of Micro-credential Platforms in Higher Education

Features for validating micro-credentials (by a

trusted source) and integrity verification are also

discussed in the literature. The concept of integrity

verification is to ensure that the content of credentials

is not tampered with in any way. The literature also

highlights types of features that are conceptually new

and have not yet been implemented and/or validated,

such as badges awarded by peers and built-in

assessment tools for the autonomous assessment of

competences (Carey & Stefaniak, 2018; Grant, 2016;

O’Connor, 2013).

Overall, the literature on digital credentials relies

heavily on insights from non-formal settings, such as

the use of badges to recognize extra curricula

activities. However, literature on the different forms

of digital credentialing for formal learning settings,

such as recognizing proofs systematically from

accredited study programs or institutions is largely

missing.

3 RESEARCH METHOD

We sought to understand the features of micro-

credential platforms by analyzing the platforms in

detail. This was accomplished using walkthroughs of

the solutions and by understanding their use through

interviews with platform providers and educational

experts. The data for this study were collected in the

context of ECIU university which is an EU-funded

project comprising of 12 European higher education

institutions. One of the main objectives of the ECIU

university initiative is to develop new ways of issuing

micro-credentials to learners partaking in learning

offerings from partner universities.

Literature and online searches were done to

identify relevant platforms to be included in the study.

Ten platforms were reviewed (eight based in Europe

and two in the United States), and representatives of

each company were interviewed either individually or

in groups. The 10 studied platforms were EDCL

(formerly Europass), Credentify, BadgeCollect,

Digitary, VerifiEd, DiploMe, Accredible, BC

Diploma, LinkedIn Learning and, Gataca.

Additionally, the researchers took part in the EBSI

early adopter program to examine its capabilities for

managing digital credentials for learning.

Data were collected using semi-structured

interviews and focus group discussions. Two key

stakeholder groups were addressed for the research:

(1) individuals with high expertise in micro-

credentials and (2) micro-credential platform

providers. The respondents were identified by using

the snowballing sampling technique where initial

respondents help to identify future study subjects

from their acquaintances or based on their personal

knowledge (Secor, 2010). Overall, 19 respondents

took part in a total of 13 interviews, and 3 focus group

discussions. Each of the three group discussions

involved platform providers (two from Europe and

one from the United Kingdom). One of the group

discussions had two platform representatives and the

other two group discussions had three representatives.

Of the interviews, eight interviews were with

platform providers and five were with digital

credential experts. One platform provider and one

expert were interviewed twice (and counted as

separate interviews) to clarify and deepen some of the

views regarding the features and the way they are

used. Three of the experts interviewed were

university lecturers from Europe and one was a

primary consultant on micro-credentials from an

education innovation consultancy firm in Australia.

Most of the platform provider interviews were with

the founders, account executives and chief operating

officers. The interviews were mainly conducted

online using Zoom and lasted between 41 and 122

minutes. The interviews and group discussions were

all recorded and transcribed.

The first step of the analysis was to pinpoint the

features of micro-credential platforms, followed by

identifying any conceptual similarities between the

features to categorize them. The next step was to

name these categories and compare them with the

literature. The findings of these three steps are

discussed in Chapter 4. The final step was to identify

how these features could be useful to both higher

education institutions and learners. Here, we

especially focused on the purposes for which the

micro-credentials platforms were used and collected

experts’ insights on the benefits of using them.

4 FINDINGS

Our investigation of features offered by micro-

credential platforms resulted in 12 categories and 38

features (Tables 2a and 2b). We acknowledge that all

the platforms are evolving, each supporting an

increasing number of features. This is why the aim of

our analysis was to present a comprehensive

overview of which features that are essential for

micro-credential platforms, instead of simply

indicating the features that are currently supported by

specific platforms. Intrinsically, the results pinpoint

the features that platforms offer for both the

institutions and learners.

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

The micro-credential platforms and features

offered differ depending on the target audience. Three

main stakeholder groups were identified: issuing

organizations, learners who receive the credentials

and recognizers who verify the credentials (such as

employers or other institutions). The research

findings are divided into two sections. In the first

(Table 2a), basic features such as user interface, types

of digital credentials, and portfolio management are

presented. The following section (Table 2b) refers to

advanced features such as learning pathways,

verification, and the validation of digital credentials.

User interfaces are the first and foremost feature

offered to all users. Most platforms offer user

interfaces designed for issuers, although learners and

recognizers are allowed to view the digital

credentials. Very few platforms (e.g., VerifiEd) offer

user interfaces specifically for recognizers. While the

interfaces are simple for learners, they can become

complex for those platforms issuing digital

credentials for formal learning. This is because of the

proofs and assessments that are typically required to

recognize formal learning activities in higher

education.

The types of digital credentials issued depend on

their purpose. All the platform providers realize the

importance of digital credentials and how they add

value to traditional degrees and diplomas. Digital

credentials such as badges are used more for non-

formal learning, to indicate a task that has been

completed or an achievement. Within formal learning

settings, they can also be used to indicate finishing a

task or to identify a level that has been reached.

Importantly, issuing a badge when a particular level

is reached, or a skill is acquired would not require

major changes to formal learning processes. Instead,

it adds awareness and builds up work competences

needed for the 21

century. E-certificates can be

considered a simple change of medium (from paper

to digital) when recognizing the completion of a

course. It is also a common feature to allow issuers to

customize the digital credentials, both visually and in

terms of data included.

Viewing the digital credentials (including

associated metadata) remains a crucial basic feature

of any platform, especially for learners. Further,

searchability of the credentials becomes especially

critical as their number increases, such as when

learners collect them from the majority of their

studies.

All the platforms have more than one way of

issuing the digital credentials. Even though issuing a

credential to a single learner is possible as a manual

feature on the web interface, more common ways of

issuing seem to be semi-automatic, using tools such

as Microsoft Excel to gather lists of learners to be

issued the same credential. To issue credentials for

larger groups, such as an entire class (bulk), the most

common method is API integration into local systems

(such as student management systems). This also

includes automatic issuing at the end of learning

periods to all students, in addition to automatic

issuing when a request is received.

Portfolio management is a category that is still

evolving. Moreover, although all the platforms offer

a way of collecting digital credentials, only a few

provide a way of importing them from other sources.

Platforms are realizing that there is a greater need to

provide different paths for organizing credentials and

for visualizing the skills acquired while they were

being earned.

The ability to share digital credentials on social

media (especially on professional media such as

LinkedIn) is offered by most of the platforms.

Further, most platforms realize the value of being able

to share credentials on social media and other formats

(such as emails) for potential employers or

educational institutions as proof of learning.

Visualizing the pathways is currently associated

with bundled learning opportunities towards a larger

credential and visually shows how these learning

opportunities are connected. Bundled learning

opportunities can be a group of learning offerings

specific to a particular field or skill, and the pathway

will show the order to complete the offerings to obtain

larger credentials. These larger credentials might also

include the badges or certificates from individual

learning offerings within the bundle.

There are a wide range of proof types associated with

digital credential, from simply adding viewable and

searchable issuer-related data to adding formal

learning related data. Most digital credentials can

incorporate multiple types of proofs. Platforms that

offer formal learning credentials include proofs of

learning outcome related data, grading scheme data,

and data regarding any standard frameworks used.

Some platforms have started using competence

frameworks such as European Skills, Competences,

Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) to support

the addition of skills and competences into the digital

credentials. Awards and achievements associated

with a learning offering are captured and included by

all the platforms. Moreover, allowing different types

of proofs of learning to be submitted increases the

credibility of the digital credentials, especially in

higher education.

Features of Micro-credential Platforms in Higher Education

Table 2a: Basic features of digital credential platforms.

Category

Feature

Description

Emphasis by Platforms

User Interface

User interface for issuer

Interface for administrators and

teachers

Supported by all the platforms

User interface for earners

Interface for earners such as

students in higher education

Supported by the majority of the

platforms

User interface for

recognizers

Interface for recognizers such as

institutions that verify credentials

Not supported by the majority of the

platforms

“The vision that we have for the future is that people can collect their certificates initially and then, we start to add in

the metadata, and link them back to the courses that they have done.“ - CEO

Types of

Digital

Credentials

Badges

Awarded for the completion of

task or learning offering

Emphasized for non-formal learning

E-certificates

Certificate of completion

including diplomas

Emphasized for formal and non-

formal learning

Proofs with browsable data

Digital credential is text based

and includes metadata

Only supported by a few platforms

Custom digital credentials

Customize the content and look

(AK Rottmann, 2021)

Supported by the majority of the

platforms

Peer awarded credentials

Awarded by Peers as part of the

learning (O’connor, 2013)

Not supported by the majority of the

platforms

View and

Search function for learners

Search based on issuers

(Devedzic & Jovanovic, 2015)

Supported by the majority of the

platforms

View metadata

View all the metadata associated

with a credential

Supported by all platforms

Custom display

Customizing how the digital

credentials are displayed

Only supported by a few platforms

“Our platform can be used in two ways, we have a public version and a white label version for several institutes where

we limit the search functionalities to the badges in their ecosystem” – Co-founder

Issuing Digital

credentials

Manually via web interfaces

Create and/or issue credentials

for a single learner

Semi-automatic issue

Use tools to create list of users to

issue digital credentials

Only supported by a few platforms

Bulk issuing

Automated awarding of

digital credentials

Award digital credentials

automatically when requested

Supported by the majority of the

platforms

Via API integrations Issue digital credentials in bulk Supported by all the platforms

Portfolio

management

Collecting digital credentials

Portfolio of all earned digital

credentials (Glover,2013)

Supported by the majority of the

platforms

Importing digital credentials

Importing from other sources

(Dimitrevic et.al, 2016)

Only supported by a few platforms

Organizing digital

credentials

Organize by specific category

(such as badges, diplomas)

Only supported by a few platforms

Stackability

Ability to display collection of

credentials for particular

skills/field

Platforms understand the importance

but don’t have any concrete

implementations yet.

“On the student’s profile, they should see their basic data wallet and achievements, but we are still trying to understand

what people should see and in what order and in what design” - COO

Share digital

credentials

Social media platforms

Share digital credentials on

various social media platforms

such as LinkedIn

Supported by the majority of the

platforms

With industry/institutions

Share digital credentials with

potential employers and others

Supported by the majority of the

platforms

“It is about being shared, secured and also as being rich in terms of data which enables cool things like job matching

algorithms, predicted analytics when it comes to admissions and more streamlined admission flows” - ESO

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

Table 2b: Advanced features of digital credential platforms.

Category Feature Description

Emphasis by Platforms

Pathways of

Digital

Credentials

Visualizing and

documenting pathways

for digital credentials

Collection of learning offerings that

need to be completed to earn a

larger degree or skill.

Only supported by a few platforms

“This is something everyone has been discussing that some credentials should be stackable and maybe build up to some

sort of micro-degree depending on the objectives of the issuing institution”- COO

Types of proofs

attached with the

digital credential

Issuer-related data

Allowing users to browse proof

related to issuers

Supported by all platforms

Skill-related data

Use standard frameworks as

taxonomy for skills

Only supported by a few platforms

Educational standards and

frameworks

(e.g. EQF, NQF) (Rehak & Hickey,

2013)

Supported by the majority of the

platforms

Awards and achievements

Meta data specific to achievements

and awards

Supported by all the platforms

Learning outcome related

data

Commonly associated with formal

learning, includes skills learners

will acquire

All the platforms associated with

formal learning offer this feature.

Formal learning related

data

Commonly associated with formal

learning, includes data such as

ECTS and learning hours

All the platforms associated with

formal learning offer this feature

Grading scheme related

data

Commonly associated with formal

learning, includes data on scale

applied to grades

All the platforms associated with

formal learning offer this feature.

Supplementary evidence

of learning

Attaching appendices and

supplementary evidence to the

credential (Grant, 2014)

Supported by the majority of the

platforms

Support of learning

assessment

Different versions of digital

credentials for different levels of

mastery

Only supported by a few platforms

View metadata

View all the metadata associated

with a digital credential

Supported by all the platforms

Custom display

Customizing how the digital

credentials are displayed

Only supported by a few platforms

“Our platform is used by companies, consortiums and schools. So, we have a lot of different contexts and if we,

prescribed one template for skills within our system, then it doesn't work for everyone” – Co-founder

Link with

Learning

offerings

Registration for learning

offering

Search for learning offerings and

Only supported by a few platforms

Verification of

authenticity

Blockchain

Use blockchain technology for

authenticity of data

Emphasized by EBSI

Electronic seal

An authenticator signature to

ensure data origin and integrity

Emphasized by EDCL

“The fake degrees market is increasing and we have more and more false information. We need to check the authenticity

of data and we need to find the best ways to share very valuable credentials, more easily” – Co-founder

Validation

features

Reviewing metadata

Review metadata digital credential

submitted by the learner

Supported by all platforms

Validating the digital

credential

Validate the evidence of achieving

the digital credential

Supported by majority of the

platforms

Another feature that is gathering momentum

(although still in its infancy) is a way of linking

learning offerings from the platform based on various

factors such as interests and learning offerings

learners have completed. LinkedIn Learning seems to

be offering something similar to this feature, although

it is definitely not a common feature for most

platforms.

Features of Micro-credential Platforms in Higher Education

One of the main features that every higher

education institution pays special attention in a

digital credentialing platform is verification method

used to

make the credentials tamper-proof when they are

about formal learning. Some platforms use

blockchain technology for security authentication

and data sharing. Although blockchain technology is

recognized as an effective tool, platforms

acknowledge a level of uncertainty due to its lack of

widespread adoption. However, all the stakeholders

admit there is a need for verification technology to

ensure secure data transfer at all levels. Currently

EDCL uses eSeal (electronic seal) as a security

measure to verify the authenticity. Further, EBSI is

working with different stakeholders (including

higher education institutions) to use blockchain

technology with standard data models such as EDCL

for different types of digital credentials. The EBSI

also enables verification of the digital credential and

all involved stakeholders (i.e., the issuing

organization and learner) seamlessly. Through

EBSI, learners can create a “verifiable presentation”

of any of the digital credentials to share. This

verifiable presentation contains required proofs that

can be signed with cryptographic keys to ensure the

authenticity.

While the verification of digital credentials

involves authenticating the credentials and the

issuing organization (for example), the contents of

the credentials should also be validated. This

includes validating the evidence of achieving the

digital credential. The EBSI model of viewer

presentation specifically addresses this issue with

standard data models and verification methods.

5 DISCUSSION AND

CONCLUSION

This research focused on the features of micro-

credential platforms that will benefit institutions as

well as learners. Some of these features are recognized

in the literature while others were drawn out from the

interviews and group discussions held as part of this

study. Based on the findings of this research, the aim

of the next section is to answer the second research

question pertaining to how the micro-credential

platforms are helpful for both institutions and learners.

5.1 The Benefits of Micro-credential

Platforms for Institutions and

Learners

5.1.1 Institutional View

Micro-credential platforms help institutions in two

key ways: (a) issuing digital credentials to learners

and (b) verifying digital credentials issued by others.

To issue digital credentials to learners, institutions

might use websites or applications provided by the

platform providers or they could integrate such

applications into their IT infrastructure directly. They

can issue the credentials for the following: (a) non-

formal learning offerings such as extra-curricular

activities (including hackathons), (b) formal learning

offerings from study programs, which can also be

credit bearing and count towards the formal degree

program, and (c) diplomas related to the degree

programs.

Different types of proofs can reside in different

learning management systems, which need to be

aggregated before attaching to the digital credential.

Levels of proof depend on whether the learning

offering is a non-formal or formal activity, such as

recognizing ECTS or learning activities. Similar to

the issuing of different types of credentials, platforms

offer different ways of verifying credentials.

However, this is not a common way of using digital

credential platforms. The verification of credentials

can be divided into two subtypes :(a) validating the

issued credentials and, (b) verifying credentials

issued by other institutions. Similar to the issuing of

credentials, institutions might use platform websites

or IT integration for verification and validation. The

validation of the digital credentials could also include

checking for proofs of learning and grading schemes.

Digital credentials can be applied to recognize

both micro and macro learning offerings. By issuing

digital credentials for all learning opportunities,

institutions can provide a comprehensive view of

skills and competences learnt for all students. When

a digital credential is awarded for a longer program

(such as a degree), it can contain a list of individual

learning offerings and all the learning outcomes,

skills, and competences associated with each of those

learning offerings.

Issuing digital credentials will also help higher

education institutions to unbundle and offer smaller

group of offerings for larger credentials with a

different focus such as field or skill specific.

Unbundling also makes it easier for institutions to

offer learning opportunities for “lifelong learners”.

These learners can be described as a learner who

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

might have enrolled full-time in an educational

institution or are interested in upskilling or reskilling

for other reasons (such as career path, change of

career).

As more educational institutions start issuing

digital credentials, it will make validating them easier

and render the entire admission process more

streamlined.

5.1.2 Learner View

Learners can currently use the platforms to (a) view

and (b) share the digital credentials they received.

They can use either the platform websites or the

platforms’ mobile apps to view these credentials. The

learners view of credentials also includes information

on the issuing organization, awards, and

achievements from the learning offering. In the case

of formal learning, the view might also include

grading schemes, learning outcomes and assessment

criteria. With digital credentials, learners can

accumulate all the individual learning offerings and

show proof of what they have learnt.

Using the platforms in this manner help learners

in at least two key ways. First, by taking ownership

of educational credentials. The platforms enable them

to collect, store and choose the credentials to share.

This means that learners can share them on social

media and with others (such as potential employers

and other institutions). This essentially follows the

principles of self-sovereign identity (i.e., the main

objective of EBSI) and the national and European

agendas of digitalizing educational credentials.

Second, the platforms enable learners to prove the

skills and competences they possess. Such proofs are

becoming increasingly more important in job

searching and during upskilling and reskilling.

Additionally, this will enable educational

opportunities to be more open and portable from one

institution to another. Here, the types of credentials

and proofs are critical features for realizing this

function. On some platforms, learners can view their

progress towards a larger credential or bundled

learning opportunity. The visualization of

accumulated data (e.g., competences or learning

activity data from earned digital credentials) and

categorization become highly critical features.

The interoperability of the systems was raised as a

critical factor, as learners are unlikely to be tied to one

system only. The portability of digital credentials

(e.g., through common data models) is a critical

upcoming development for realizing the benefits,

especially for learners.

5.2 Contributions of the Study

The findings of this study can add significant value to

the literature in these early stages of studying digital

credentials. The relevant literature often discusses the

challenges and potential benefits of digital credential

implementation in higher education (Barnett, 2017;

Clayton, et al., 2014; Halavais, 2018). The research

around digital credentials remain scarce, especially

from the perspectives of platforms and features.

Through expert interviews, group discussions, and

interviews with platform providers, our study

identified categories and features that address these

gaps in the literature.

This study contributed to filling these research

gaps through two key theoretical contributions. First,

by categorizing the features of micro-credential

platforms and proceeding further into understanding

what platforms emphasize the features. Second, we

also identified the categories and features that are not

yet fully understood and developed.

The findings of this study can help higher

education institutions gain a broader understanding of

the digital credential platforms and the features

offered today. Based on experts’ views, the study also

provides a list of features that align with formal

learning offerings of higher education institutions.

Based on these findings, these institutions can make

informed decisions about which platforms to adopt,

depending on how they align with their vision,

operations, and stakeholders’ perspectives.

This study can also help digital credential

platforms to assess their own offerings and solutions

based on the needs of higher education institutions.

As elaborated in the institutional and learner views,

the required proofs are highly dependent on the

context of use (formal to non-formal) and use

purposes. For instance, a learner may require in-depth

proofs from specific modules or study programs to

showcase to a potential employer. This is why it is

critical to understand the expectations and upcoming

use purposes of micro-credential platforms which

might not be identifiable as initial requirements the

institutions might raise for such platforms.

5.3 Research Limitation and Future

Research

We acknowledge certain limitations to our study.

First, we acknowledge that platforms other than those

reviewed for the study might have emerged after the

data were collected. Such potential platforms should

be included in future research. Second, the features

identified in the study might already have changed as

Features of Micro-credential Platforms in Higher Education

the platforms are continuously evolving and the

study’s findings need to be revisited in further

research. Third, we used a relatively small sample

size due to a lack of experts in digital credentials.

Finding experts to participate in our study proved

difficult, as most of the people contacted only had

expertise in planning, designing, and managing study

programs instead of the digital proofs and digital

credential systems. With the major new initiatives

such as the EDCL and the EBSI, awareness of digital

credentials is likely to increase rapidly, and new

expertise will emerge in the field. Fourth, the

distribution of samples between providers and other

experts is not even. This limitation relates strongly to

the previous one and to the challenge of finding

relevant experts for the study. Fifth, we did not

account for the views of the end users, such as

learners, administrators, and teachers. We chose to

limit our sample to the providers and digital

credential experts to gain an initial understanding of

what these platforms have to offer. Further research

should soon evaluate these platforms with end users,

especially since major digital credential initiatives are

emerging nationally and internationally. Despite

these limitations, we consider this study to be relevant

and valuable to both the research community and

higher education institutions that are considering the

adoption and use of digital credentials.

Based on the findings of this study, we suggest

some areas that should be examined in the future. In

general, more research is needed on micro-credential

platforms from the higher education institution

perspective to examine factors that enable or inhibits

their adoption. Further research is also required to

study some of the less developed features such as

learning pathways, verification methods and how

higher education institutions can adopt them in the

future. In our study, experts also elaborated on

features that do not yet exist. One of these is

stackability of credentials and skills. The stackability

of skill-related data refers to how skills and

competences accrued in digital credentials over time

can be represented in a meaningful way to help

learner present a more complete picture of their skills

and knowledge. Our investigation shows a need for

further research on the ways of searching and

presenting the credential information especially when

the learners have multiple digital credentials with

similar skills and competences. Finally, the insights

from our findings show that the use of micro-

credential platforms requires consideration of the

technical, organizational, and even cultural aspects of

higher education. Therefore, we encourage

researchers to examine how institutions need to

change to facilitate the adoption of digital credentials,

such as invoking new administrative or technical

roles to manage the digital credentials related to

formal and non-formal learning opportunities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was co-funded by ECIU University

project (612521-EPP-1-2019-1-NL-EPPKA2-

EURUNIV), European Universities funding and

MicroBlock-project (2020-FI-IA-0096), CEF-TC-

2020-1–Blockchain-funding.

REFERENCES

Araújo, I., Santos, C., Pedro, L., & Batista, J. (2017).

Digital badges on education: past, present and future. In

Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Social

Media (pp. 27-35).

Beilby, J., 2018. Universities need to diversify to offer more

choice to students. [Online] Available at:

https://www.afr.com/policy/health-and-

education/justin-beilby-universities-need-to-diversify-

to-offer-more-choice-to-students-20180819-h1463

Bradley, D., Noonan, P., Nugent, H., & Scales, B. (2008).

Review of Australian higher education: Final report.

Canberra, Australia: Department of Education,

Employment and Workplace Relations.

Carey, K. L., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2018). An exploration of

the utility of digital badging in higher education

settings. Educational Technology Research and

Development, 66(5), 1211-1229.

Crow, T. (2016). Micro-credentials for impact: Holding

professional learning to high standards. Digital

Promise.

Devedžić, V., & Jovanović, J. (2015). Developing open

badges: A comprehensive approach. Educational

Technology Research and Development, 63(4), 603-

620.

Dimitrijević, S., Devedzić, V., Jovanović, J., & Milikić, N.

(2016). Badging platforms: A scenario-based

comparison of features and uses. In Foundation of

Digital Badges and Micro-Credentials (pp. 141-161).

Springer, Cham.

Ehlers, U. D. (2018). Higher creduation–Degree or

education? The rise of Microcredentials and its

consequences for the university of the future. In

European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN)

Conference Proceedings (No. 1, pp. 456-465).

European Distance and E-Learning Network.

Fong, J., Janzow, P., & Peck, K. (2016). Demographic

shifts in educational demand and the rise of alternative

credentials. Retrieved August, 20, 2016.

Glover, I., & Latif, F. (2013, June). Investigating

perceptions and potential of open badges in formal

CSEDU 2022 - 14th International Conference on Computer Supported Education

higher education. In EdMedia+ Innovate Learning (pp.

1398-1402). Association for the Advancement of

Computing in Education (AACE).

Grant, S. L. (2016). History and context of open digital

badges. In Digital Badges in Education (pp. 17-25).

Routledge.

Hall-Ellis, S. D. (2016). Stackable micro-credentials–a

framework for the future. The Bottom Line.

Hickey, D. T., & Otto, N. (2017). Endorsement 2.0: Taking

Open Badges and e-credentials to the next level.

Hope, J. (2018). Unbundle the degree to increase

opportunities for students. The Successful Registrar,

17(11), 5-5.

Kilsby, A., & Fountain, M. (2019). PENZ and Otago

Polytechnic Micro-credentials: An authentic learning

partnership. New Zealand Physical Educator, 52(3), 9-

10.

Milligan, S., & Kennedy, G. (2017). To what degree?

Alternative micro-credentialing in a digital age. Visions

for Australian tertiary education, 41-54.

O'Connor, E. A., & McQuigge, A. (2013). Exploring

badging for peer review, extended learning and

evaluation, and reflective/critical feedback within an

online graduate course. Journal of Educational

Technology Systems, 42(2), 87-105.

Oliver, B. (2019). Making micro-credentials work for

learners, employers and providers. Retrieved from

dteach. deakin. edu. au/microcredentials.

Rehak, A., & Hickey, D. (2013). Digital badge design

principles for recognizing learning. Retrieved from the

HASTAC website: http://www. hastac.

org/blogs/andirehak/2013/05/20/digital-badge-design-

principles-recognizing-learning.

Resei, C., Friedl, C., Staubitz, T., & Rohloff, T. (2019).

Micro-Credentials in EU and Global. Corship, July.

Rossiter, D., & Tynan, B. (2019). Designing and

implementing micro-credentials: A guide for

practitioners.

Tracey, R. (2014). Get badged!. Training & Development,

41(1), 24-25.

Rottmann, A. K., & Duggan, M. H. (2021). Micro-

credentials in higher education. In Handbook of

Research on innovations in Non-traditional

educational practices (pp. 223-236). IGI Global.

Secor, A. (2010). Social surveys, interviews, and focus

groups. Research methods in geography, 3, 194-205.

Soares, L. (2013). Post-traditional learners and the

transformation of postsecondary education: A

manifesto for college leaders (pp. 1-18). Washington,

DC: American Council on Education.

Wheelahan, L., & Moodie, G. (2021). Analysing micro-

credentials in higher education: a Bernsteinian analysis.

Journal of Curriculum Studies, 53(2), 212-228.

Young, D., West, R. E., & Nylin, T. A. (2019). Value of

open microcredentials to earners and issuers: A case

study of national instruments open badges.

International Review of Research in Open and

Distributed Learning, 20(5), 104-121.

Features of Micro-credential Platforms in Higher Education