Does quality assurance matter for micro-credentials in higher education? Legitimacy, regulatory framework, and challenges in four Asian contexts
通过分析新西兰、马来西亚、香港和台湾的案例，研究了微证书的质量保障机制，发现缺乏统一外部评估方法、大学尝试内部整合，以及差异化、无共同标准和认可度是主要挑战。
As a form of alternative credentials, the growth of micro-credentials (MCs) is seen as a significant manifestation of global higher education in the post pandemic era. Following global development, Asian governments have encouraged universities to provide a variety of MCs to existing students and workers. Given that non-traditional or short learning programs in most Asian contexts have not been incorporated into national qualification frameworks and quality assurance systems, it becomes difficult to recognize the value of MCs. Through document analysis and semi-interviews, the study explores quality assurance mechanisms of MCs in New Zealand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Three major findings are presented as follows. First, there was no common EQA approach due to contextualization; second, most universities attempted to incorporate MCs into internal QA mechanisms; third, differentiation, no common standards, and recognition are three key challenges from EQAA’s perspectives, but limited faculty engagement and student incentives for universities.