在学术实践中研究研究生证书中可堆叠微证书的观点和使用

IF 2.7 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Julia Sargent, B. Rienties, Leigh-Anne Perryman, Elizabeth FitzGerald
{"title":"在学术实践中研究研究生证书中可堆叠微证书的观点和使用","authors":"Julia Sargent, B. Rienties, Leigh-Anne Perryman, Elizabeth FitzGerald","doi":"10.5334/jime.805","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is increasing interest around the use of microcredentials for upskilling, employability, professional development, and reaching a wide range of learners. However, little discussion exists around the use of microcredentials to contribute towards broader qualifications and accreditation. This paper investigates the use of a series of microcredentials contributing towards a broader Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) qualification. Using a descriptive case study approach, we explore the initial development of this qualification. We also discuss PGCAP learners’ experiences of microcredentials study, drawing on the results of a survey. In doing so, we present both the merits of microcredentials from the learners’ perspectives but also some of the pedagogical and practical considerations involved. 2 Sargent et al. Journal of Interactive Media in Education DOI: 10.5334/jime.805 INTRODUCTION Online courses and learning have diversified substantially over the past decade, with higher education institutions seeking to offer online and distance education through avenues such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and microcredentials. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a more recent and global influence on online learning as institutions sought to temporarily (and sometimes permanently) expand the boundaries of the classroom and increase access to learning at a distance. Jordan and Goshtasbpour (2022) recently reflected on a decade of research on MOOCs and highlighted that MOOCs have largely failed to live up to their initial hype (around 2012) to drastically disrupt education. However, this is not a new mantra in the sense that many digital technologies in education claim to revolutionise education yet few truly revolutionise or innovate the status quo (Divjak et al. 2022; Hernández-de-Menéndez et al. 2022). Subsequently, it is important to critically investigate ‘new’ approaches to online teaching and learning and challenge their positioning as somewhat of a panacea for education. Microcredentials are relatively ‘new kids on the block’ in terms of online and distance learning courses. They differ somewhat to other credentials offered by universities in that they are delivered in a relatively short and compressed timeframe, are usually delivered online, and are usually formally accredited (Pollard & Vincent 2022). Designed largely as a solution to quickly upskill professionals (Oliver, 2019) they are popular with the general public as well as professionals (Kato, Galán-Muros & Weki 2020). Research on microcredentials is relatively sparse, largely limited to studies identifying key definitions and approaches, with few offering empirical evaluations (Brown & Nic-Giolla-Mhichil 2022; Iniesto et al. 2022). However, the interest in, and provision of microcredentials amongst higher education institutions is increasing. In 2020, for example, 36 out of 42 Australian universities were either developing or already offering microcredentials (European Commission 2020). The European MOOC consortium defines microcredentials as ‘a proof of the learning outcomes a learner has acquired following a short learning experience’, stating that these learning outcomes ‘have been assessed against transparent standards’ (European Commission 2020: 10). However, there are many different definitions of microcredentials used outside of Europe such as ‘any credential that covers more than a single course, but is less than a full degree’ (Picard 2018: 1). Recent work such as that by Iniesto et al. (2022) has put forward frameworks to help microcredentials providers to check aspects of microcredentials such as assessment and quality assurance to ensure the best possible learning experience for their learners. However, due to there not being a single and universal definition of microcredentials, there are many variations in terms of microcredentials assessment, quality assurance, perceived value added and validation processes (European Commission 2020). Oliver (2019) adds that microcredential courses have stand-alone value as well as complementing other short courses. Such values include personalization, flexibility of study, cost-efficiency, and collaboration (Hunt et al. 2020). These short, online courses (around 10–12 weeks in length) can often be credit bearing or, upon completion, learners can receive an online badge or certification (Clements, West & Hunsaker 2020). Providers of microcredentials include both platforms, such as FutureLearn and Coursera, and the various institutions presenting courses on these platforms such as The National Education Association, Victoria University and the University of Birmingham. Topics covered by microcredentials range from online teaching to climate change, space technology and sports coaching. We know from some of the literature that microcredentials have the potential to provide practical knowledge and skills that have applications to the workplace (Hunt et al. 2020). Yet evidence is still mixed regarding who benefits from microcredentials (European Commission 2020). For example, Hollands and Kazi (2019) argued that learners completing microcredentials in the USA, India and Canada were generally young, well-educated and in highly paid jobs. Substantial gaps remain in terms of academic research that focuses on implementing and sustaining microcredentials in higher education (Selvaratnam & Sankey 2021) as well as their relevance to the workplace or to practical contexts (Woods & Woods 2021). The current literature provides a picture of microcredentials as a form of organised but flexible learning that has potential for supporting skills such problem solving and which offers new opportunities 3 Sargent et al. Journal of Interactive Media in Education DOI: 10.5334/jime.805 for learning recognition (West et al. 2020). However, it is increasingly emerging that, despite their practical focus, many employers are unfamiliar with microcredentials or how they can be ‘stacked’ into qualifications (Ashcroft et al. 2021; Owen 2022; Perkins & Pryor 2021). Furthermore, there is concern that microcredentials can perpetuate neoliberalism, positioning education as a commodity and learners as consumers (Pollard & Vincent 2022). Questions are also being raised about the equity of access to microcredentials (Ralston 2021). Subsequently, there is a need to explore microcredentials’ relevance to learners/employers as well as the value of these courses for aspects such as professional development, networking or academic support. While some have sought to provide descriptions of sets of microcredentials and their design (e.g., White (2021), such studies offer limited insights into issues such as equity or employment-relevant skills development, and empirical research focusing on these areas is much needed (Selvaratnam & Sankey 2021). Whilst microcredentials can be viewed in isolation as credit-bearing courses in their own right, there is increasing interest in their use within qualifications, either as optional or compulsory courses alongside non-microcredential curriculum, or as ‘stacked’ or stackable microcredentials, whereby a series of cognate microcredential courses are put together to comprise all the credit for a qualification. Focusing on the Australasian context, Selvaratnam and Sankey (2021: 4) identify the use of stackable microcredentials as ‘postgraduate courses built-up by undertaking a number of shorter courses for academic credit and stacking those credits to attain a recognised award (usually a Graduate Certificate)’. Qualifications featuring stackable microcredentials include ‘traditional’ certificates, diplomas and degrees, in addition to newer macro-qualifications, or accreditation (Desmarchelier 2021). Macro-qualifications have been variously branded, with examples including ‘NanoDegrees’, ‘MicroMasters’ and ‘Micro-degrees’ (European Commission 2020; Gallagher 2018). This study explores microcredentials’ use as stackable components of a 60-credit Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) provided by The Open University (OU) in the UK. Postgraduate Certificates or PGCerts are common both within Masters programmes, comprising a third of the credit for a full Masters qualification, and as standalone offerings. The PGCAP that is the focus of this study is a standalone qualification, comprising 60 credits gained at FHEQ Level 7. The credits are gained by learners successfully passing four 15-credit microcredentials. Postgraduate Certificates in Academic Practice (PGCAP) are a common feature of initial professional development provision for early career academics (Reimann and Allin, 2018). They are often delivered by higher education institutions to support teaching and learning practices and can be a route to receiving broader accreditation such as, in the UK, Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy1 (FHEA),2 which is offered to learners successfully completing the OU PGCAP. Relevant literature suggests that such qualifications can aid educators in gaining new skills, reflection and adopting more student-centred approaches to their teaching (Chadha 2015). Many of the studies focusing on PGCAPs have tended to explore courses that are delivered face-to-face, commonly in the UK (e.g. Rienties & Kinchin 2014). There is little research on the use of stackable microcredentials within such postgraduate certificates, in part as microcredentials-based PGCAPs are uncommon. However, with the increase in online provision in recent years, especially in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is now important to explore whether the affordances offered by the face-to-face delivery of courses within PGCAP programmes remain, whether online alternatives are viable and, in particular, whether the employment-related skills focus and flexibility offered by microcredentials are of value. As argued by Rienties et al. (in review), there could be several limitations in providing a PGCAP online, such as unc","PeriodicalId":45406,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interactive Media in Education","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating the Views and Use of Stackable Microcredentials within a Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice\",\"authors\":\"Julia Sargent, B. Rienties, Leigh-Anne Perryman, Elizabeth FitzGerald\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/jime.805\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is increasing interest around the use of microcredentials for upskilling, employability, professional development, and reaching a wide range of learners. However, little discussion exists around the use of microcredentials to contribute towards broader qualifications and accreditation. This paper investigates the use of a series of microcredentials contributing towards a broader Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) qualification. Using a descriptive case study approach, we explore the initial development of this qualification. We also discuss PGCAP learners’ experiences of microcredentials study, drawing on the results of a survey. In doing so, we present both the merits of microcredentials from the learners’ perspectives but also some of the pedagogical and practical considerations involved. 2 Sargent et al. Journal of Interactive Media in Education DOI: 10.5334/jime.805 INTRODUCTION Online courses and learning have diversified substantially over the past decade, with higher education institutions seeking to offer online and distance education through avenues such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and microcredentials. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a more recent and global influence on online learning as institutions sought to temporarily (and sometimes permanently) expand the boundaries of the classroom and increase access to learning at a distance. Jordan and Goshtasbpour (2022) recently reflected on a decade of research on MOOCs and highlighted that MOOCs have largely failed to live up to their initial hype (around 2012) to drastically disrupt education. However, this is not a new mantra in the sense that many digital technologies in education claim to revolutionise education yet few truly revolutionise or innovate the status quo (Divjak et al. 2022; Hernández-de-Menéndez et al. 2022). Subsequently, it is important to critically investigate ‘new’ approaches to online teaching and learning and challenge their positioning as somewhat of a panacea for education. Microcredentials are relatively ‘new kids on the block’ in terms of online and distance learning courses. They differ somewhat to other credentials offered by universities in that they are delivered in a relatively short and compressed timeframe, are usually delivered online, and are usually formally accredited (Pollard & Vincent 2022). Designed largely as a solution to quickly upskill professionals (Oliver, 2019) they are popular with the general public as well as professionals (Kato, Galán-Muros & Weki 2020). Research on microcredentials is relatively sparse, largely limited to studies identifying key definitions and approaches, with few offering empirical evaluations (Brown & Nic-Giolla-Mhichil 2022; Iniesto et al. 2022). However, the interest in, and provision of microcredentials amongst higher education institutions is increasing. In 2020, for example, 36 out of 42 Australian universities were either developing or already offering microcredentials (European Commission 2020). The European MOOC consortium defines microcredentials as ‘a proof of the learning outcomes a learner has acquired following a short learning experience’, stating that these learning outcomes ‘have been assessed against transparent standards’ (European Commission 2020: 10). However, there are many different definitions of microcredentials used outside of Europe such as ‘any credential that covers more than a single course, but is less than a full degree’ (Picard 2018: 1). Recent work such as that by Iniesto et al. (2022) has put forward frameworks to help microcredentials providers to check aspects of microcredentials such as assessment and quality assurance to ensure the best possible learning experience for their learners. However, due to there not being a single and universal definition of microcredentials, there are many variations in terms of microcredentials assessment, quality assurance, perceived value added and validation processes (European Commission 2020). Oliver (2019) adds that microcredential courses have stand-alone value as well as complementing other short courses. Such values include personalization, flexibility of study, cost-efficiency, and collaboration (Hunt et al. 2020). These short, online courses (around 10–12 weeks in length) can often be credit bearing or, upon completion, learners can receive an online badge or certification (Clements, West & Hunsaker 2020). Providers of microcredentials include both platforms, such as FutureLearn and Coursera, and the various institutions presenting courses on these platforms such as The National Education Association, Victoria University and the University of Birmingham. Topics covered by microcredentials range from online teaching to climate change, space technology and sports coaching. We know from some of the literature that microcredentials have the potential to provide practical knowledge and skills that have applications to the workplace (Hunt et al. 2020). Yet evidence is still mixed regarding who benefits from microcredentials (European Commission 2020). For example, Hollands and Kazi (2019) argued that learners completing microcredentials in the USA, India and Canada were generally young, well-educated and in highly paid jobs. Substantial gaps remain in terms of academic research that focuses on implementing and sustaining microcredentials in higher education (Selvaratnam & Sankey 2021) as well as their relevance to the workplace or to practical contexts (Woods & Woods 2021). The current literature provides a picture of microcredentials as a form of organised but flexible learning that has potential for supporting skills such problem solving and which offers new opportunities 3 Sargent et al. Journal of Interactive Media in Education DOI: 10.5334/jime.805 for learning recognition (West et al. 2020). However, it is increasingly emerging that, despite their practical focus, many employers are unfamiliar with microcredentials or how they can be ‘stacked’ into qualifications (Ashcroft et al. 2021; Owen 2022; Perkins & Pryor 2021). Furthermore, there is concern that microcredentials can perpetuate neoliberalism, positioning education as a commodity and learners as consumers (Pollard & Vincent 2022). Questions are also being raised about the equity of access to microcredentials (Ralston 2021). Subsequently, there is a need to explore microcredentials’ relevance to learners/employers as well as the value of these courses for aspects such as professional development, networking or academic support. While some have sought to provide descriptions of sets of microcredentials and their design (e.g., White (2021), such studies offer limited insights into issues such as equity or employment-relevant skills development, and empirical research focusing on these areas is much needed (Selvaratnam & Sankey 2021). Whilst microcredentials can be viewed in isolation as credit-bearing courses in their own right, there is increasing interest in their use within qualifications, either as optional or compulsory courses alongside non-microcredential curriculum, or as ‘stacked’ or stackable microcredentials, whereby a series of cognate microcredential courses are put together to comprise all the credit for a qualification. Focusing on the Australasian context, Selvaratnam and Sankey (2021: 4) identify the use of stackable microcredentials as ‘postgraduate courses built-up by undertaking a number of shorter courses for academic credit and stacking those credits to attain a recognised award (usually a Graduate Certificate)’. Qualifications featuring stackable microcredentials include ‘traditional’ certificates, diplomas and degrees, in addition to newer macro-qualifications, or accreditation (Desmarchelier 2021). Macro-qualifications have been variously branded, with examples including ‘NanoDegrees’, ‘MicroMasters’ and ‘Micro-degrees’ (European Commission 2020; Gallagher 2018). This study explores microcredentials’ use as stackable components of a 60-credit Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) provided by The Open University (OU) in the UK. Postgraduate Certificates or PGCerts are common both within Masters programmes, comprising a third of the credit for a full Masters qualification, and as standalone offerings. The PGCAP that is the focus of this study is a standalone qualification, comprising 60 credits gained at FHEQ Level 7. The credits are gained by learners successfully passing four 15-credit microcredentials. Postgraduate Certificates in Academic Practice (PGCAP) are a common feature of initial professional development provision for early career academics (Reimann and Allin, 2018). They are often delivered by higher education institutions to support teaching and learning practices and can be a route to receiving broader accreditation such as, in the UK, Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy1 (FHEA),2 which is offered to learners successfully completing the OU PGCAP. Relevant literature suggests that such qualifications can aid educators in gaining new skills, reflection and adopting more student-centred approaches to their teaching (Chadha 2015). Many of the studies focusing on PGCAPs have tended to explore courses that are delivered face-to-face, commonly in the UK (e.g. Rienties & Kinchin 2014). There is little research on the use of stackable microcredentials within such postgraduate certificates, in part as microcredentials-based PGCAPs are uncommon. However, with the increase in online provision in recent years, especially in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is now important to explore whether the affordances offered by the face-to-face delivery of courses within PGCAP programmes remain, whether online alternatives are viable and, in particular, whether the employment-related skills focus and flexibility offered by microcredentials are of value. As argued by Rienties et al. (in review), there could be several limitations in providing a PGCAP online, such as unc\",\"PeriodicalId\":45406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interactive Media in Education\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interactive Media in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.805\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interactive Media in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/jime.805","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

人们对使用微证书来提高技能、就业能力、专业发展和接触更广泛的学习者越来越感兴趣。但是,很少有人讨论使用微证书来促进更广泛的资格和认证。本文调查了一系列微证书的使用,有助于更广泛的研究生学术实践证书(PGCAP)资格。使用描述性案例研究方法,我们探索了这一资格的最初发展。根据一项调查结果,我们还讨论了PGCAP学习者的微证书学习经验。在此过程中,我们从学习者的角度提出了微证书的优点,同时也提出了一些教学和实践方面的考虑。2 Sargent等。互动媒体在教育杂志DOI: 10.5334/jime.805在过去的十年中,在线课程和学习已经大大多样化,高等教育机构寻求通过大规模开放在线课程(MOOCs)和微证书等途径提供在线和远程教育。随着各机构寻求暂时(有时是永久)扩大课堂边界,增加远程学习的机会,COVID-19大流行对在线学习产生了最近的全球性影响。Jordan和Goshtasbpour(2022)最近回顾了十年来对mooc的研究,并强调mooc在很大程度上未能实现其最初的宣传(2012年左右),未能彻底颠覆教育。然而,这并不是一个新的咒语,因为许多教育领域的数字技术声称要彻底改变教育,但很少有真正改变或创新现状的(Divjak等人,2022;Hernández-de-Menéndez et al. 2022)。随后,重要的是批判性地研究在线教学和学习的“新”方法,并挑战它们作为某种教育灵丹妙药的定位。就在线和远程学习课程而言,微证书相对来说是“新生事物”。它们与大学提供的其他证书有所不同,因为它们在相对较短的时间内交付,通常在线交付,并且通常是正式认证(Pollard & Vincent 2022)。它们主要是作为快速提升专业人士技能的解决方案而设计的(Oliver, 2019),在公众和专业人士中都很受欢迎(Kato, Galán-Muros和Weki 2020)。关于微证书的研究相对较少,主要局限于确定关键定义和方法的研究,很少提供实证评估(Brown & nici - giolla - mhichil 2022;伊涅斯托等人,2022)。然而,高等教育机构对微证书的兴趣和提供正在增加。例如,2020年,澳大利亚42所大学中有36所正在开发或已经提供微证书(欧盟委员会2020年)。欧洲MOOC联盟将微证书定义为“学习者在短期学习经历后获得学习成果的证明”,并指出这些学习成果“已根据透明标准进行评估”(欧盟委员会2020:10)。然而,在欧洲以外使用的微证书有许多不同的定义,例如“涵盖单一课程以上但低于完整学位的任何证书”(皮卡德2018:1)。最近的工作,如伊涅斯托等人(2022)提出了框架,帮助微证书提供者检查微证书的各个方面,如评估和质量保证,以确保学习者获得最佳的学习体验。然而,由于没有一个单一和通用的微证书定义,在微证书评估、质量保证、感知增值和验证过程方面存在许多差异(欧盟委员会2020)。Oliver(2019)补充说,微证书课程具有独立价值,也可以补充其他短期课程。这些价值观包括个性化、学习灵活性、成本效益和协作(Hunt et al. 2020)。这些简短的在线课程(大约10-12周)通常可以获得学分,或者在完成课程后,学习者可以获得在线徽章或认证(Clements, West & Hunsaker 2020)。微证书的提供者既包括FutureLearn和Coursera等平台,也包括在这些平台上提供课程的各种机构,如英国国家教育协会、维多利亚大学和伯明翰大学。微证书涵盖的主题从在线教学到气候变化、空间技术和体育教练。我们从一些文献中了解到,微证书有可能提供适用于工作场所的实用知识和技能(Hunt et al. 2020)。 然而,关于谁从微证书中受益的证据仍然是混杂的(欧盟委员会2020)。例如,Hollands和Kazi(2019)认为,在美国、印度和加拿大,完成微证书的学习者通常是年轻人,受过良好教育,从事高薪工作。在专注于在高等教育中实施和维持微证书的学术研究(Selvaratnam & Sankey 2021)以及它们与工作场所或实际环境的相关性(Woods & Woods 2021)方面,仍存在巨大差距。目前的文献将微证书描述为一种有组织但灵活的学习形式,具有支持解决问题等技能的潜力,并提供了新的机会(Sargent等)。教育互动媒体杂志DOI: 10.5334/jime。805学习识别(West et al. 2020)。然而,越来越多的人发现,尽管微证书注重实际,但许多雇主并不熟悉微证书,也不熟悉如何将其“堆叠”成资格证书(Ashcroft等人,2021;欧文2022年;Perkins & Pryor 2021)。此外,有人担心微证书会使新自由主义永久化,将教育定位为商品,将学习者定位为消费者(Pollard & Vincent 2022)。人们还提出了关于获得微证书的公平性的问题(Ralston 2021)。随后,有必要探索微证书与学习者/雇主的相关性,以及这些课程在专业发展、网络或学术支持等方面的价值。虽然有些人试图提供微证书及其设计的描述(例如,White(2021)),但这些研究对公平或就业相关技能发展等问题提供的见解有限,并且非常需要针对这些领域的实证研究(Selvaratnam & Sankey 2021)。虽然微证书本身可以被孤立地视为有学分的课程,但人们对在资格证书中使用它们的兴趣越来越大,要么作为非微证书课程的选修课或必修课,要么作为“堆叠”或可堆叠的微证书,将一系列同源的微证书课程放在一起,构成资格证书的所有学分。关注澳大利亚的背景,Selvaratnam和Sankey(2021: 4)确定了可堆叠微证书的使用,即“通过参加一些短期课程获得学分并将这些学分堆叠以获得认可的奖项(通常是研究生证书)而建立的研究生课程”。具有可堆叠微证书的资格证书包括“传统”证书、文凭和学位,以及较新的宏观资格证书或认证(Desmarchelier 2021)。宏观资格有各种各样的品牌,例如“纳米学位”,“微硕士”和“微学位”(欧盟委员会2020;加拉格尔2018)。本研究探讨了微证书作为英国开放大学(OU)提供的60学分学术实践研究生证书(PGCAP)的可堆叠组件的使用。研究生证书或硕士学位证书在硕士课程中很常见,占完整硕士资格学分的三分之一,也可以作为单独的课程。PGCAP是本研究的重点,是一个独立的资格认证,包括60个FHEQ 7级学分。这些学分是由成功通过四个15学分的微证书的学习者获得的。研究生学术实践证书(PGCAP)是早期职业学者初始专业发展规定的共同特征(Reimann and Allin, 2018)。它们通常由高等教育机构提供,以支持教学和学习实践,并且可以成为获得更广泛认证的途径,例如在英国,高等教育学院奖学金(FHEA),该奖学金提供给成功完成OU PGCAP的学习者。相关文献表明,这些资格可以帮助教育工作者获得新的技能,反思和采用更多以学生为中心的教学方法(Chadha 2015)。许多专注于pgcap的研究都倾向于探索面对面授课的课程,通常在英国(例如Rienties & Kinchin 2014)。关于在此类研究生证书中使用可堆叠的微证书的研究很少,部分原因是基于微证书的pgcap并不常见。然而,随着近年来在线课程的增加,特别是与COVID-19大流行有关,现在重要的是探索PGCAP项目中面对面课程提供的能力是否仍然存在,在线替代方案是否可行,特别是微证书所提供的与就业相关的技能重点和灵活性是否有价值。正如Rienties等人所说。 (在审查中),提供PGCAP在线可能有几个限制,例如unc
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Investigating the Views and Use of Stackable Microcredentials within a Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice
There is increasing interest around the use of microcredentials for upskilling, employability, professional development, and reaching a wide range of learners. However, little discussion exists around the use of microcredentials to contribute towards broader qualifications and accreditation. This paper investigates the use of a series of microcredentials contributing towards a broader Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) qualification. Using a descriptive case study approach, we explore the initial development of this qualification. We also discuss PGCAP learners’ experiences of microcredentials study, drawing on the results of a survey. In doing so, we present both the merits of microcredentials from the learners’ perspectives but also some of the pedagogical and practical considerations involved. 2 Sargent et al. Journal of Interactive Media in Education DOI: 10.5334/jime.805 INTRODUCTION Online courses and learning have diversified substantially over the past decade, with higher education institutions seeking to offer online and distance education through avenues such as Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) and microcredentials. The COVID-19 pandemic has been a more recent and global influence on online learning as institutions sought to temporarily (and sometimes permanently) expand the boundaries of the classroom and increase access to learning at a distance. Jordan and Goshtasbpour (2022) recently reflected on a decade of research on MOOCs and highlighted that MOOCs have largely failed to live up to their initial hype (around 2012) to drastically disrupt education. However, this is not a new mantra in the sense that many digital technologies in education claim to revolutionise education yet few truly revolutionise or innovate the status quo (Divjak et al. 2022; Hernández-de-Menéndez et al. 2022). Subsequently, it is important to critically investigate ‘new’ approaches to online teaching and learning and challenge their positioning as somewhat of a panacea for education. Microcredentials are relatively ‘new kids on the block’ in terms of online and distance learning courses. They differ somewhat to other credentials offered by universities in that they are delivered in a relatively short and compressed timeframe, are usually delivered online, and are usually formally accredited (Pollard & Vincent 2022). Designed largely as a solution to quickly upskill professionals (Oliver, 2019) they are popular with the general public as well as professionals (Kato, Galán-Muros & Weki 2020). Research on microcredentials is relatively sparse, largely limited to studies identifying key definitions and approaches, with few offering empirical evaluations (Brown & Nic-Giolla-Mhichil 2022; Iniesto et al. 2022). However, the interest in, and provision of microcredentials amongst higher education institutions is increasing. In 2020, for example, 36 out of 42 Australian universities were either developing or already offering microcredentials (European Commission 2020). The European MOOC consortium defines microcredentials as ‘a proof of the learning outcomes a learner has acquired following a short learning experience’, stating that these learning outcomes ‘have been assessed against transparent standards’ (European Commission 2020: 10). However, there are many different definitions of microcredentials used outside of Europe such as ‘any credential that covers more than a single course, but is less than a full degree’ (Picard 2018: 1). Recent work such as that by Iniesto et al. (2022) has put forward frameworks to help microcredentials providers to check aspects of microcredentials such as assessment and quality assurance to ensure the best possible learning experience for their learners. However, due to there not being a single and universal definition of microcredentials, there are many variations in terms of microcredentials assessment, quality assurance, perceived value added and validation processes (European Commission 2020). Oliver (2019) adds that microcredential courses have stand-alone value as well as complementing other short courses. Such values include personalization, flexibility of study, cost-efficiency, and collaboration (Hunt et al. 2020). These short, online courses (around 10–12 weeks in length) can often be credit bearing or, upon completion, learners can receive an online badge or certification (Clements, West & Hunsaker 2020). Providers of microcredentials include both platforms, such as FutureLearn and Coursera, and the various institutions presenting courses on these platforms such as The National Education Association, Victoria University and the University of Birmingham. Topics covered by microcredentials range from online teaching to climate change, space technology and sports coaching. We know from some of the literature that microcredentials have the potential to provide practical knowledge and skills that have applications to the workplace (Hunt et al. 2020). Yet evidence is still mixed regarding who benefits from microcredentials (European Commission 2020). For example, Hollands and Kazi (2019) argued that learners completing microcredentials in the USA, India and Canada were generally young, well-educated and in highly paid jobs. Substantial gaps remain in terms of academic research that focuses on implementing and sustaining microcredentials in higher education (Selvaratnam & Sankey 2021) as well as their relevance to the workplace or to practical contexts (Woods & Woods 2021). The current literature provides a picture of microcredentials as a form of organised but flexible learning that has potential for supporting skills such problem solving and which offers new opportunities 3 Sargent et al. Journal of Interactive Media in Education DOI: 10.5334/jime.805 for learning recognition (West et al. 2020). However, it is increasingly emerging that, despite their practical focus, many employers are unfamiliar with microcredentials or how they can be ‘stacked’ into qualifications (Ashcroft et al. 2021; Owen 2022; Perkins & Pryor 2021). Furthermore, there is concern that microcredentials can perpetuate neoliberalism, positioning education as a commodity and learners as consumers (Pollard & Vincent 2022). Questions are also being raised about the equity of access to microcredentials (Ralston 2021). Subsequently, there is a need to explore microcredentials’ relevance to learners/employers as well as the value of these courses for aspects such as professional development, networking or academic support. While some have sought to provide descriptions of sets of microcredentials and their design (e.g., White (2021), such studies offer limited insights into issues such as equity or employment-relevant skills development, and empirical research focusing on these areas is much needed (Selvaratnam & Sankey 2021). Whilst microcredentials can be viewed in isolation as credit-bearing courses in their own right, there is increasing interest in their use within qualifications, either as optional or compulsory courses alongside non-microcredential curriculum, or as ‘stacked’ or stackable microcredentials, whereby a series of cognate microcredential courses are put together to comprise all the credit for a qualification. Focusing on the Australasian context, Selvaratnam and Sankey (2021: 4) identify the use of stackable microcredentials as ‘postgraduate courses built-up by undertaking a number of shorter courses for academic credit and stacking those credits to attain a recognised award (usually a Graduate Certificate)’. Qualifications featuring stackable microcredentials include ‘traditional’ certificates, diplomas and degrees, in addition to newer macro-qualifications, or accreditation (Desmarchelier 2021). Macro-qualifications have been variously branded, with examples including ‘NanoDegrees’, ‘MicroMasters’ and ‘Micro-degrees’ (European Commission 2020; Gallagher 2018). This study explores microcredentials’ use as stackable components of a 60-credit Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) provided by The Open University (OU) in the UK. Postgraduate Certificates or PGCerts are common both within Masters programmes, comprising a third of the credit for a full Masters qualification, and as standalone offerings. The PGCAP that is the focus of this study is a standalone qualification, comprising 60 credits gained at FHEQ Level 7. The credits are gained by learners successfully passing four 15-credit microcredentials. Postgraduate Certificates in Academic Practice (PGCAP) are a common feature of initial professional development provision for early career academics (Reimann and Allin, 2018). They are often delivered by higher education institutions to support teaching and learning practices and can be a route to receiving broader accreditation such as, in the UK, Fellowship of the Higher Education Academy1 (FHEA),2 which is offered to learners successfully completing the OU PGCAP. Relevant literature suggests that such qualifications can aid educators in gaining new skills, reflection and adopting more student-centred approaches to their teaching (Chadha 2015). Many of the studies focusing on PGCAPs have tended to explore courses that are delivered face-to-face, commonly in the UK (e.g. Rienties & Kinchin 2014). There is little research on the use of stackable microcredentials within such postgraduate certificates, in part as microcredentials-based PGCAPs are uncommon. However, with the increase in online provision in recent years, especially in connection with the COVID-19 pandemic, it is now important to explore whether the affordances offered by the face-to-face delivery of courses within PGCAP programmes remain, whether online alternatives are viable and, in particular, whether the employment-related skills focus and flexibility offered by microcredentials are of value. As argued by Rienties et al. (in review), there could be several limitations in providing a PGCAP online, such as unc
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Interactive Media in Education
Journal of Interactive Media in Education EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
8
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信