A ton of time, energy, and oxygen gets spent parsing what to call various credentials and what those words mean. Specific to microcredentials, we often lack shared, standardized meaning between academic units within a single university, never mind across regions and sectors. People crave—and deserve—clarity, and aren’t afraid to demand it.
At the annual conference of the Non-degree Credentials Network (NCRN), participants did not shy away from the topic during an hour-long panel discussion: “What are we Talking About Anyway? The Ever-Shifting Boundaries and Categories of Nondegree Credentials,” moderated by Michelle Van Noy, director of the Education and Employment Research Center at Rutger’s University..
While the field has devoted much attention to the topic over the years—with some consensus among NCRN members around WorkCred’s definitions of certificates, certifications, licenses, and degrees—newer forms of credentials complicate these categories. Newer forms of credentials like badges and microcredentials, along with certificates, have a dizzying array of definitions, as evidenced by an audience poll of NCRN members.
Chris Mullin, strategy director of data and measurement at Lumina Foundation, recently put forward one possible taxonomy for making sense of the credential landscape, offering categories of microcredential, macrocredential, and maintenance credential.
Yet a consensus has yet to emerge. This panel discussed whether it’s even necessary. Instead, many panelists recommended that the field prioritize the content taught or the skills learners acquire over whether a program is called a microcredential, badge, or certificate. This recommendation flows from the sheer confusion and lack of consistency in definitions among these emerging forms of credentials.
Melanie Gottlieb, executive director of AACRAO, jumpstarted that conversation with a bold statement: “It might not matter what we call them.”
It’s an idea that surprised some people in the room and that, she admitted, might be uncomfortable for many of the registrars who are her members. Gottlieb said that what matters is that—regardless of whether we want all learning to count, or for only select learning to count—those records rely on responsible parties, such as registrars, to ensure that the learning is documented in accurate, trusted, verifiable ways. Whatever we call these things, it is important that we think about them as records of learning, and that we share a common understanding that the value is in the contents, not the labels.
“These are containers and what’s inside of them is what matters,” Gottlieb said.
This concept resonated with fellow panelist Noah Geisel, the microcredentials program manager at the University of Colorado Boulder. “We can go into our kitchens and pick up any random container and instantly have clarity about what’s inside,” he said. “I can get a more detailed understanding of what’s contained in a $3 box of cereal than I can from a university learning record like a transcript.”
Geisel expressed his belief that credentials that focus on transparency and storytelling about their contents will be valuable tools in making the case for higher education. “In a moment in which there is widespread second-guessing about the value of postsecondary attainment, we have the opportunity to tell the story about what our credentials are credentialing, to unpack the container and highlight its contents that are benefitting our learners,” he said.
This idea—that credentials need a “nutritional label”—provided rich food for thought among panelists and conference attendees.
Scott Cheney, CEO of Credential Engine, further noted the difficulty of pinning down exact definitions due to the evolving nature of the field. With educational institutions continually evolving and competing to innovate, definitions and consistent names may be an elusive target in our decentralized system. “It’s American education. We’re not going to stop the creation of new things, nor should we,” he said. “We’re always trying to have new packaging of skills to meet new requirements in the workplace.”
Nonetheless, he noted that Credential Engine is in the midst of developing new categories for its latest “Counting Credentials” report, expected to be ready later this year.
Panelists and audience members discussed the concept of a nutritional label for credentials, raising questions for further thought. Hironao “Hiro” Okahana, vice president and executive director of the Education Futures Lab at ACE, noted that the transcript currently functions like an ingredients list, letting people know what the contents are of a credential, but not necessarily telling them what can be made with them like a recipe.
“A transcript is a kind of ingredients list. I have no idea how my natural resource economics class that I took a long time ago and early Christianity history are serving me at this very particular moment,” he said. Peter Bahr raised the question of whether there would be a “recommended dietary allowance” for learning, and if so, how that would be established, such as by linking to the goals of a credential or needs of stakeholders.
Many questions would need to be worked out, but the concept is a fertile one for development—opening up potential for a coordinated effort to make information more available on the actual content of credentials.
So, if we had a “nutrition label” for credentials, what information would we need for it to be valuable? On this list will be a core set of essential elements that the public should know about what’s “in” a credential, regardless of type, level, or source.
For example, a credential “nutrition label” may include information about the credential as it is designed, including elements such as duration, cost, delivery mode, alignment with industry need, indicators of mobility (e.g. transfer values, pathways, etc.), support services, associated assessments, and quality indicator(s). It may also clearly and explicitly list essential skills and competencies that credential holders would be expected to possess.
And, the label will need to go deeper. Just as nutrition labels provide information beyond ingredients and quantify calories, fat, and sugar, learners deserve to know the endgame too. Let’s make sure the label includes information about a credential’s outcomes of value. Essential elements may include: earnings, employment outcomes, completion rates, and utility for effective hiring and advancement.
For the nutrition label concept to work in postsecondary education, labels must be required for all educational and occupational credentials, including but not necessarily limited to high school diplomas or their equivalent, badges, microcredentials, certificates, certifications, occupational licenses, and degrees of all types and levels. And questions of whether there is an equivalent to a recommended daily allowance would also need to be addressed—perhaps recognizing the unique needs of particular stakeholders. We would also need to determine ways to make this information public and integrated into existing structures, such as the Credential Transparency Description Language (CTDL).
The question of consistent definitions is still open and worth having as audience members pointed out. As Jeff Strohl, director of the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, pointed out some definitions are needed for the purpose of data collection and will need to be determined. Yet, moving the discussion to this deeper level of information on the contents and benefits of credentials can better speak to consumer needs—and ultimately move the field to a more fruitful and healthy discussion about credentials.
Learn more about the NCRN or contact us to continue exploring this topic. We invite thoughts from members in future posts to develop this idea.
Noah Geisel is the micro-credentials program manager at the University of Colorado Boulder. Scott Cheney is CEO of Credential Engine. Michelle Van Noy is director of the Education and Employment Research Center at Rutger’s University. Hironao Okahana is vice president and executive director of the Education Futures Lab at the American Council on Education. And Melanie Gottlieb is executive director of AACRAO.