��� �Session 2. Quality Assurance, Trust and Transparency: Applying ESG-informed Approaches to Micro-credentials��Prof. Dr. Ann Katherine Isaacs�Former Vice Chair BFUG Bologna Follow Up Group); ECTS, Bologna Process, Tuning expert; MICROBOL; SIQA��Tbilisi�12 October 2026���

Session 2: Summary

1. Embedding micro-credentials within institutional internal QA systems.
2. Proportionate and fit-for-purpose QA: balancing agility with academic standards and public trust.
3. Stakeholder involvement: learners, academic staff, employers, alumni and professional bodies.
4. Learning outcomes, assessment, workload, academic integrity, monitoring and periodic review.
5. Information that should be transparent before enrolment and documented after successful completion.

​

Intitial conclusions - Discussion��

1. Embedding micro-credentials within institutional internal QA systems.�

According to ESG principles, responsibility for quality … and the basis for trust by government, society, employers and colleagues, in the own and other countries … is conceptualised in three sections:

• Internal quality assurance (and quality culture)
• External quality assurance (enhancement and accreditation)
• Quality of the QA provider itself

Embedding micro-credentials within institutional internal QA systems.�

QA is often mentioned as a particular challenge in the roll-out of microcredentials. First reactions are often: QA must be greatly simplified, otherwise it is too much of a burden; or: if they are offered by a quality assured provided, people should just accept that the MCs are of high quality.

In part these reactions --- both of them --- are unjustified.

Nonetheless, a lot of thought and much prose has gone into considering how to handle QA of MCs, and EHEA tools, such as in the ECTS Users’ Guide currently under revision, deal explicitly with MCs.

Embedding micro-credentials within institutional internal QA systems.�

The same is not true for the ESG, the “Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the European Higher Education Area”. As many know and we have seen, the ESG is also currently being revised. During the summer the Draft 3 was shared to gather comments, and the Draft 4 is now being prepared for approval in November at the BFUG meeting in Ireland.

Interestingly, whereas the Draft 4 of the new ECTS Users’ guide refers to micro-credentials more than 50 times, the Draft 3 of the ESG only mentions them twice.

A paradox?

Embedding micro-credentials within institutional internal QA systems.

This is striking because much work has been done about QA for micro-credentials, in MICROBOL, IMINQA, SIQA and other projects and venues.

The explanation: MCs are not something entirely new and special. If the general QA measures, internal and external, are in place, MCs will be quality assured with the rest of the offer of the provider (if the provider is a higher education institution).

In fact, the ESG regards QA for HE in the EHEA. Other areas may need to be addressed separately in a scenario that, for ECTS for example, opens up to all education, at all levels and of all kinds.

Embedding micro-credentials within institutional internal QA systems.�

If we look at the two occurrences of the term ‘Micro-credential’ in the present draft of the 2027 edition of the ESG, we confirm this key aspect. The first occurrence:

II. Scope, purposes, and principles:

“The ESG apply to all higher education offered by institutions from the EHEA, regardless of the volume, mode of study, educational provider, place of delivery, or form of education, including but not limited to digitally enhanced provision, lifelong learning opportunities and short units of learning such as micro-credentials. In addition, the ESG also apply to transnational and cross-border provision of higher education within and outside of the EHEA.”

​

Embedding micro-credentials within institutional internal QA systems.�

The second occurrence:

2. The definition of ‘Programme’:

“Refers to all higher education provision, including that which is not leading to a degree, regardless of the volume, mode of study, educational provider, place of delivery or form of education (digitally enhanced provision, lifelong learning opportunities and short units of learning such as micro-credentials). It also refers to international provision such as joint, transnational and cross-border education.”

​

Embedding micro-credentials within institutional internal QA systems.�

Obviously, in the case of ‘embedded MCs’ the quality assurance, internal and external is to a large extent covered by the existing QA and accreditation procedures.

Nonetheless certain aspects may require special attention.

For example:

• How an MC is presented and through which channels?
• Are the LOs really of interest to employers?
• Are they ‘relevant’, up-to-date --- fit for purpose -- are they ‘cutting edge’ technically?

​

Micro-credentials and QA�

The Draft 3 of the new ESG has been available for consultation during the summer, and it contains a useful table of the proposed revisions with respect to the 2015 edition we all know..

�

2. Proportionate and fit-for-purpose QA: balancing agility with academic standards and public trust.�

As we can see, with regard to internal quality – and also esternal QA --, introducing an offer of microcredentials does not make it necessary to to radically change existing systems, if these are up to standard.

It does require that the existing systems be implemented thoroughly and with due regard to the stakeholders’ views and input.

.

Ensuring that QA for micro-credentials is proportionate and fit-for purpose�

The MICROBOL project dedicated a lot of attention to the question of QA for MCs, and formulated recommendations, which have also been taken up in IMINQA.

Overall the MICROBOL recommendation is to have a light tough, in that when the providers are HEIs quality assured already by EQAR registered QA agencies, there is a guarantee that institutional internal quality procedures are in place. Adding MCs to the picture should not mean excessive additional burdens --- whether for the HEIs or for the QA agencies.

MICROBOL on QA of MCs �

1. Quality of provision lies with the HEI (Agencies support them and ensure the public and stakeholders that the HEIs have taken up this responsibility)
2. Part 1 of the ESG insists on the HEIs having in place policies and processes to ensure their compliance, also involving learners in all steps of the development, implementation and evaluation of MCs.
3. The ESG apply to all HE in the EHEA, however delivered: this means that HEIs or other providers must establish internal QA arrangements compatible with the European framework for MCs.
4. To avoid overburdening HEIs, external QA should focus on the institutional approach to MCs and their inclusion in existing or new processes rather than on in depth vetting of single programme, as is done with full degree programmes.

QA of MCs: the light touch and non academic providers �

In other words, QA should focus on the capacity of the HEIs to manage their offer of micro-credentials in a quality assured manner, guaranteeing strong connection with stakeholders, quick updating of curricula, proper communication about the MCs offered and use of secure verifiable certification methods.

​

A separate question regards providers who are not higher education institutions. Here the solutions are:

• An MC provided by a non academic provider is assessed and recognized by an HE.
• National or transnational guidelines are established for the verification of quality of non academic providers
• A national register is created by a trusted QA agency or agencies which lists the non academic providers that are quality assured.

3. Stakeholder involvement: learners, academic staff, employers, alumni and professional bodies.

Here we must address several aspects, including participation of stakeholders of various kinds in the QA process itself, and QA of the way they are involved in the design and assessment of MCs.

According the existing ESG’s Standard 1.1: Institutions must have a clear and public internal QA system, created and implemented with the involvement of learners and external stakeholders.

The ultimate aim, and ambition, is to develop a real internal quality culture, in which all components, staff, learners and external stakeholders are aware of and contriute to quality, not in a bureaucratic way.

Stakeholder involvement: learners, academic staff, employers, alumni and professional bodies.

Standards 1.2 and 1.9 address specific areas of stakeholder involvement:

• Design and approval of new programmes –which ‘students’ (or learners as we now say) and other stakeholders must be hnvolved to ensure relevance with respect to social and labor market needs.
• During the continuing monitoring, review and revision cycles, learners, graduates, employers and other external experts are to be involved in giving feedback and input.

Stakeholder involvement: learners, academic staff, employers, alumni and professional bodies.

Standards 1.7 and 1.8 regard the systems used internal to ensure useful feedback, and that it is acknowledged and the stakeholders informed:

Systems must be in place to track student satisfaction, the employment rate, paths and satisfaction of graduates.

If changes are made in programmes they are to be shared, with the stakeholders.

These guidelines regarding stakeholder involvement are meaningful for MCs – and must necessarily be implemented in a short time frame to ensure the relevance MCs tied closely to rapidly evolving technical requirements.

Stakeholder involvement: learners, academic staff, employers, alumni and professional bodies.

These specific Standards (1.1, 1.2,1.7. 1.8, and 1.9) all mandate direct involvement of stakeholders.

In the current Draft of the revised ESG they are strengthened and clarified, emphasizing communication, involvement and recognition of their role.

For example, under Standard 1.1 in the 2015 edition we find: “Internal stakeholders should develop and implement this policy through appropriate structures and processes, while involving external stakeholders.”

Stakeholder involvement: learners, academic staff, employers, alumni and professional bodies.

Whereas in the present draft we find:

“The development and implementation of the policy for quality assurance should include a structured, meaningful and visible role for students, staff, and other internal and external stakeholders. The core outcomes of the quality assurance processes and the measures taken should be shared with the stakeholders, including students and staff.”

Stakeholder involvement: learners, academic staff, employers, alumni and professional bodies.

With regard to professional bodies, their contribution is essential when a ‘programme’ (including small learning programmes, i.e MCs) involve regulated professions and fields such as Medicine, Nursing, Law, Architecture, Engineering or Accounting.

While formal verification is the norm for full qualifications, ensuring the relevance of MCs will also require involving the relevant bodies.

Furthermore, as specified by the ESG, they have an important role as experts or advisors, evaluating curricula, checking competence levels, and guiding and providing QA for practice-based learning.

The relevant ESG Standards are 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.9.

4. Learning outcomes, assessment, workload, academic integrity, monitoring and periodic review.

Key points in the QA of any programme, including MCs, as delineated in the ESG:

Learning outcomes:

• HEIs are responsible for competently developing and publishing LOs for all programmes offered.
• The LOs must align with the NQF and the referenced framework (EQF or QF-EHEA) and be appropriate to the disciplinary area and the required competences.
• Learning activities and teaching modes must be suitable to enable achievement of the LOs.

Assessment:

• The assessment method/s must be aligned with the LOs and suitable for verifying that the learner has achieved them.
• The assessments must be implemented fairly and consistently, and include measures to ensure that the person assessed is the person certified.

​

​

​

Learning outcomes, assessment, workload, academic integrity, monitoring and periodic review.

Workload

• The learning time, including all activities including personal study, is estimated and measured according to ECTS parameters.
• Transparent criteria for the allocation and award of ECTS are obligatory, as is
• Monitoring. Learners must be consulted on whether the estimate of workload measured in time is realistic.

Academic integrity:

This aspect is increasingly difficult to control in our AI conditioned era, but depends first of all on institutional culture and support, underpinned by;

• Clear ethical guidelines and codes of conduct
• Especially for remote or digital assessment, great care is necessary to ensure the identity of the learner and the absence of plagiarism.

​

​

​

Learning outcomes, assessment, workload, academic integrity, monitoring and periodic review

Monitoring and periodic review:

• Institutions must have formal mechanisms for the approval, monitoring and periodic review of their study programmes.
• Learner progress, achievement and success rates are monitored, and feedback is gathered (and utilised for improvement) from learners, teachers, and employers --- and, optimally, graduates
• Programmes are periodically reviewed using procedures that involve external experts and students.

​

Both institutions and QA agencies must undergo periodic review at least every five years.

​

​

​

5. Information that should be transparent before enrolment and documented after successful completion.

Before enrolling, a clear description of any programme, including a microcredential, must be available. According to ECTS this must be in the Course Catalogue format.

​

It must make clear:

• The intended Learning Outcomes
• The workload in ECTS credits
• The EQF QF-EHEA level
• The type of assessment foreseen (including how verified and supervised)
• The mode of delivery: in presence, online, blended, hybrid
• Pre-requisites and conditions for access
• Cost and financial obligations

​

​

ECTS Course catalog

The draft of the the new Users’ guide specifies: “Required information on each programme or stand-alone learning opportunity, e.g. micro-credential”:, and includes, in addition to the above elements just mentioned:

​

• field(s) of education (using ISCED-F11)
• occupational profiles of graduates (if applicable)
• access to further studies (if applicable)
• learning schedule (full-time/part-time/e-learning etc.)
• grading scale
• work-based learning and traineeship(s) (if applicable)
• programme coordinator or equivalent contact information
• links to examination regulations and other relevant regulations/policies

​

​

Before enrolment:

For MCs in particular:

​

• information about how the credential will be delivered and made available and whether it is potentially part of a planned pathway, in which other MCs are offered.
• How the MC is quality assured: as part of a higher education institution’s offer, in a QA context guaranteed internally by the insitituion and externally by an EQAR registered QA agency? Or is the provider included in a register of quality assured non-academic providers?
• What form will the certification have? digital badge, blockchain certificate etc.
• How can it be accessed and managed?

​

After successful completion:

​

​

​

The standard elements are listed the European Council Recommendation on a European Approach to micro-credentials, 6.b:

​

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32022H0627(02)

​

​

After successful completion:

They are:

• Identification of the Learner (legal name, date of birth or learner identifier)
• Title of the Micro-credential (official clear name)
• Awarding Body (official name and legal identity of the HEI, country/region)
• Date of issuance (exact date)
• Intended Learning Outcomes (detailed description K, S, C)
• ‘Notional’ Workload (ECTS): (estimated hours of learning, wherever possible ECTS)
• Educational Level (EQF or QF-EHEA)
• Form of participation (online, face-to-face. Blended,/hybrid)
• Type of Assessment: explicit information on how assessedwritten, practical, project etc
• Type of QA: clear indication, internal ESG based, external QA agency)
• If the format is digital, as recommended the verification system, electronic seal.

​

​

Questions – reflections - discussion