On Campus Podcast – Building a Credible Micro-Credential Ecosystem in Higher Education

To easily navigate through our podcast, simply click on the ☰ icon on the player. This will take you straight to the chapter timestamps, allowing you to jump to specific segments and enjoy the parts you’re most interested in.

1. Introduction and Episode Framing (00:06) The host introduces the podcast, explains its educational purpose, and welcomes listeners to the episode.
2. Defining Credible Micro-Credentials (00:43) Anne Reed joins the conversation and explains why credibility, authentic assessment, proof of learning, and integration into university processes are essential to meaningful micro-credentials.
3. Micro-Credentials on the Higher Ed Maturity Curve (03:15) Discussion of how micro-credentials are moving from hype toward mainstream acceptance, with more realistic expectations about their benefits, limitations, use cases, and role in higher education.
4. Technology, Terminology, and Adoption Challenges (06:25) Anne describes barriers that still limit broader use, including applicant tracking systems, employer verification challenges, inconsistent terminology, and confusion around different types of micro-credentials.
5. Common Institutional Missteps (08:57) The conversation explores positioning problems, including treating micro-credentials as shortened traditional credentials, designing without external stakeholder input, and focusing on badges rather than meaningful learning experiences.
6. Building a Strong Micro-Credential Ecosystem (12:49) Anne explains the importance of coordination, collaboration, shared standards, a central office, and cross-campus alignment to create consistency for learners, faculty, and employers.
7. Growth of Dedicated Micro-Credential Offices (14:54) Anne discusses how offices focused on micro-credentials have become more common, especially in systems and states prioritizing short-term credentialing, upskilling, and reskilling.
8. Balancing Rigor, Flexibility, and Speed (16:54) Discussion of how structured governance, existing approval processes, clear timelines, and shared quality expectations help institutions respond to workforce needs while maintaining academic rigor.
9. Faculty Buy-In and Faculty-Led Design (19:36) Anne describes how leadership support, faculty ownership, review committees, workshops, shared examples, and assessment models support faculty engagement in micro-credential development.
10. Evidence of Impact and Measuring Value (22:09) Anne discusses the need for nuance when evaluating micro-credentials, emphasizing contribution to skill development, confidence, visibility, advancement, and opportunity rather than simple causal claims.
11. Student, Alumni, Employer, and ROI Considerations (24:44) The conversation covers short-term learner feedback, emerging alumni and employer research, holistic ROI, learning outcomes, persistence, institutional value, equity, access, and evidence collection.
12. Looking Ahead: Successful Micro-Credential Ecosystems (28:39) Anne reflects on future success factors, including lifelong learning, flexibility, alumni engagement, AI-era skill demonstration, applied assessment, and visible evidence of learning.
13. Closing Remarks and Outro (33:18) The guest and host close the conversation, and the episode ends with acknowledgments and information about CITI Program resources.

Ed Butch: Welcome to On Campus with CITI Program, the podcast where we explore the complexities of the campus experience with higher education experts and researchers. I’m your host, Ed Butch, and I’m thrilled to have you with us today. Before we get started, I want to quickly note that this podcast is for educational purposes only and is not designed to provide legal advice or guidance. In addition, the views expressed in this podcast are solely those of our guests. Welcome to another episode of On Campus. I’m excited to be joined today by Anne Reed, director of the office of micro-credentials at the University of Buffalo. Welcome to the pod, Anne.

Anne Reed: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

Ed Butch: Of course. So being a former recruitment and retention director for a university, I wanted to look at an episode on micro-credentials because I know they’re becoming increasingly popular, especially as a recruitment tool, but we also know that not everyone really does it well. So to start broadly, how would you define a credible micro-credential ecosystem? And I guess what really separates credible programs from one that struggle to gain traction?

Anne Reed: Yeah, that’s a great question. I feel like you can’t really talk about credentials without talking about credibility. Credibility is really intrinsic to any meaningful credential, any credential that’s going to be used. It has to be credible and it’s really no coincidence that both terms trace back to the Latin root cred, meaning to believe or to trust. And so yeah, to be credible, micro-credentials need to be intentionally designed and delivered as meaningful learning programs and they need to serve as proof of learning. So what separates credible programs from ones that struggle to gain traction? I would say that the dividing line is really about assessment, authentic assessment. Credible credentials will verify performance against standards while weaker ones will certify attendance or participation. A learner really needs to be able to point to evidence of their learning or their skills that are gained. So that might be a project, a demonstration or an artifact, something like that, some kind of evaluated output. And fortunately, since micro-credentials are awarded digitally, they allow all of that sort of proof of learning to be more transparent than traditional paper-based credentials.

So that’s what I would say about credibility. And also to get there, I think they also need to be integrated into a university’s established processes. And we’re already really good at having these processes in place to support credibility for our credentials that we’ve been offering for centuries. Approval processes, review cycle, ownership model, clearly articulated standards, quality oversight, those types of things that we already do in universities that needs to be built into micro-credentials.

Ed Butch: Yeah, that makes complete sense to have those regulations and policies and following those same things. So as I mentioned in the intro, they’ve moved micro-credentials and moved from these innovative things to something that is a little bit more mainstream. So when we look at higher ed as a whole, I guess where do we sit on that maturity curve and what maybe still isn’t working well?

Anne Reed: Yeah, that’s a great question. I think as someone who has been engaged in higher education for working with educational technologies and educational innovation for quite some time, I really try to stay abreast of where innovations are, what’s coming. And so annual publications like Educause Horizon Report and Gardner’s Hype Cycle for Higher Education. I’ve been really following where micro-credentials are situated in both of those reports. And sometimes they’re referred to with other terminology like stackable credentials, digital or alternative credentials, but we’re really talking about the same thing. And like you said, they’re moving towards widespread use and mainstream acceptance and both of the most recent reports situate them as being on the way towards mainstream acceptance and use. I really like the hype cycle, I’m not sure if you’re familiar with the hype cycle diagram. Basically there’s this point where an innovation goes from being seen as a fad or something that’s only temporary towards moving towards what they call the slope of enlightenment, which is the place before the plateau of productivity, which is widespread mainstream use and acceptance.

And so that’s what we’re really moving towards with micro-credentials. I like to call it more like the plateau of realistic expectations. And that’s the point where we begin to really understand the innovations benefits from a realistic point of view rather than sort of a hype type of point of view. But not only the benefits, but also the limitations are well understood and so we understand, and the benefits and limitations can be understood. And so we can design better programs that are really more realistic rather than hyped up all these sort of value propositions that are not well proven. And so I think that’s where we are. I think that right now we’re beginning to see a stronger sort of contextual understanding of how micro-credentials can be used, the purposes that they served, how they can be integrated effectively into organizations. And so we’re starting to se more use cases and best practices.

And even I would say in more of the mainstream media, I would say 2020 to 2024, we saw an upsurge in media articles like Forbes, Inside Higher Education, things like that, talking about micro-credentials from this really disruptive place, this disruptive innovation with headlines such as the rise of micro-credentials, the end of universities, or micro-credentials being positioned as alternatives to degrees or revolutionizing or disrupting traditional models. But I think actually it’s really interesting because in even just the last year or so, we’ve been seeing more realistic discourse with headlines like micro-credentials bridging gaps to the workforce or expanding opportunities or adding value for learners or complimenting or augmenting academic programs. So I think that’s a really great thing. And so we’re starting to become more realistic about what they do, what they can do and how they should be positioned. But I think what’s really not working well, I think the technology infrastructure needs to catch up for them to be really used by the primary stakeholders.

So learners who earn them, institutions who award them and employers or other stakeholders who might view them. So still the technology systems, let’s take for example the applicant tracking systems really are not yet built, they really favor traditional degrees and they lack fields for something for credentials that are not traditional. And so that doesn’t allow recruiters to really verify skills effectively the skills that micro-credentials verify. There’s still conflation of terminology conflation. So for example, between micro-credentials and MOOCs, that’s something that really irks me is that I see an article and I’m so excited it’s about micro-credentials and the value of micro-credentials potentially, but then I see it’s only really about MOOCs for example. And I think there are so many different types of micro-credentials that I think there needs to be more understanding of different types and their purposes, and what they are and how they’re different.

Ed Butch: So when institutions are approaching the micro-credentials, you talked a little bit about some of the what isn’t working well. But I guess what do you really see as some of the missteps when universities are looking at credentialing, especially when it comes to institutional goals or really workforce needs that are out there?

Anne Reed: Yeah, I think we’re really seeing two common missteps, and both of them relate to how micro-credentials are positioned. So the first being that some institutions see micro-credentials or develop micro-credentials that are simply shorter versions of traditional academic credentials. So they may have the same structure as traditional credentials, like using the tuition model or tied to academic calendar and semester long courses, for example, or they’re designed with limited innovation in assessment practices. So for example, perhaps somebody can earn a micro-credential by completing a series of courses and taking a final exam rather than really developing and demonstrating skills and receiving feedback on performance-based assessments, for example. And so sometimes micro-credentials are designed entirely by academics with little or no engagement with external stakeholders. So we need the academics perspective and input and deep expertise in their discipline. But we also really need to make sure that micro-credentials are relevant beyond the university and have meaning to external viewers such as employers.

So I think that there needs to be, and this is something that I really feel great about at my university, is that I feel like we have structured support and professional learning to help faculty recognize the purpose of micro-credentials, like the affordances they offer and how they’re different from traditional credentials and what value they offer beyond what is already provided through traditional models. Because otherwise they’re simply a series of academic courses with badges instead of credentials that clearly are aligned with workforce relevant skills. So that’s the first misstep I’m seeing. And then the second one is also something that I’m really passionate about is the problem that I constantly trying to communicate is that micro-credentials, they’re not a product.

They should involve a learning process. It’s not just about the credential itself. And so focusing on the credential as a product rather than focusing on the design of meaningful learning experiences is a big misstep that we’re seeing. So like I said, awarding micro-credentials for participation without evidence of assessment and treating micro-credentials as something that somebody can go to a marketplace and buy rather than as something that somebody earns. So there’s a problem with that sort of symbolic credentialing. And then what happens when we have this more symbolic credentialing is that a learner will earn a micro-credential, but then they can’t really clearly communicate or demonstrate the skills that they gained and employers don’t know how to interpret it. Faculty maybe don’t see the point of it or don’t adapt their practices to leverage the possibilities of micro-credentials and advisors can’t explain it. Registrars don’t see the point of recording it. I mean, it goes on and on, right? But overall, it’s a low signal value.

Ed Butch: Well, and you started to touch a little bit on it there in that first misstep you were talking about, but from the research you’ve done and your work at Buffalo, what I guess are a few of the core components that every institution needs in place to be able to build this ecosystem?

Anne Reed: I always talk about the importance of coordination and collaboration. I started our office back in 2017 and really spent a whole year connecting with students, faculty, deans, industry partners, and listening to them and what they need and what they value and what they perceive as the needs where are the gaps in terms of the credentials we already offer and what else is needed. And so I think that institutions that offer micro-credentials by developing them through, and I hate to say silos, but across silos. So their academic departments offer some type of micro-credentials and their continuing education unit offers some types of micro-credentials, but there’s not consistency across what that means or clearly articulated standards or coordination in terms of how they’re being awarded, or things like that. And so I think inconsistent standards or definitions, duplication of offerings, confusion for learners or employers, that kind of thing happens if there’s not coordination.

So having a coordinated office, a central office, has been really instrumental for our university just to bring folks together and make sure that everyone across the board kind of understands what micro-credentials are, what counts as a micro-credential and what’s not a micro-credential, what are the required components. Yeah, so a shared framework is really critical for aligning with institutional priorities.

Ed Butch: Well, in 2017, that seems really early, so congrats on that. I mean, I was pleasantly surprised when I had found your information online, there is this office of micro-credentials. Is that something, again, now on that curve that higher ed is on right now, now that they’re starting to become a little bit more accepted and mainstream, are you seeing more offices that are dedicated like your office?

Anne Reed: Yes, for sure. When I started my office, it was pretty much unheard of. I remember going to… There’s a conference called the Badge Summit. Yeah, there was some excitement about the idea of an office dedicated to micro-credentials and a director of micro-credentials, but now that’s becoming very common, especially in states that prioritize micro-credentials or it’s part of the governor’s strategy to increase short-term credentialing and upscaling and re-skilling and things like that. So New York State is one of them. And also SUNY, the State University of New York, which University of Buffalo is part of, has a system-wide micro-credentialing initiative.

And so I think that’s why our office started so early is because they started talking about micro-credentials way back then and put out a policy framework and things like that. So yeah, we started early on. And so by the time the pandemic hit, which is when I think many institutions really started showing interest in micro-credentials, we had already had our infrastructure and processes and systems set up. So we grew exponentially during that point, but we were already established as an office. And so I think that’s why we have so many offerings now because we had that foundation in place already.

Ed Butch: That’s really great. And really good to hear that it is spreading and expanding across many universities as well. But we’ve mentioned workforce obviously multiple times here. So I’m interested to hear your thoughts on how institutions really kind of balance that academic rigor with flexibility and speed? Because I think as you mentioned at one point, designing these credentials with workforce demands in mind that can change rapidly is important. So what does that balance look like for you between that rigor and the flexibility and speed?

Anne Reed: That’s a great question. So I think they really need to be united. So we need rigor to ensure the credibility of our offerings, so that our micro-credentials are actually meaningful learning opportunities and they verify assessed learning, but we also need to be flexible so that we can meet market demands. So I think that it’s very important to have really structured processes in place. And so like my office now is a well-oiled machine for getting micro-credentials up and running and we can approve micro-credentials much more quickly than we can approve degree programs, which sometimes takes years, whereas micro-credentials are typically approved in about three months. And so we could be nimble with the offerings and target highly relevant skills. So yeah, structured processes and that begins with a very well-defined governance process. And so I always recommend that institutions take advantage of the processes that they already have in place rather than building new ones because the processes they have in place are already understood and they have that buy-in.

And so our micro-credentials, the final approving body is the academic deans, so the associate dean’s council. And they are the same group that approves new courses and degree programs, which then go on to stay that for final approval, whereas micro-credentials are locally approved, which makes things a lot more quick. So having shared frameworks about what a quality micro-credential looks like and what needs to be incorporated into it, and having well-communicated expectations and timelines, all of those things are really important to make sure that balance happens.

Ed Butch: I’m interested because again, having worked in higher ed for many years before joining CITI Program, one of the biggest barriers that I would obviously see, and I think we hear about a lot with especially micro-credentialing is faculty buy-in. In the work that you’ve done over these now, what, almost 10 years, how have you been able to get faculty engaged in designing and also delivering the micro-credentials?

Anne Reed: Yeah. For us, I don’t know if we are unique in that faculty buy-in has not necessarily been a problem because our initiative is largely faculty led. So faculty are the ones who propose new micro-credentials and who offer the micro-credentials, support the learners. So we wouldn’t have micro-credentials if we didn’t have faculty who wanted to offer them. Something that plays a big part is where micro-credentials fit in our org chart. So the initiative was really spearheaded by, at the time he served as the vice provost for academic affairs. So my office is in the provost office. And so the vice provost for academic affairs oversees the deans, the deans report to him, and then the faculty report to the deans. And so since the leadership was emphasizing a need for micro-credentials, that trickled down to the faculty. And then like I said, that year of getting our processes up and running was also spent developing the communication strategy, which was developed based on what I was hearing from faculty and deans and partners and things like that.

And so building in that value early on was really critical to having faculty see the value of micro-credentials. And we also engage with faculty in other ways, our faculty serve on our micro-credential review committee. We also facilitate interaction amongst faculty. We have workshops on designing micro-credentials and things like that, bringing them together to talk to one another and to hear what other people are doing and we share out examples of strong models and assessment models for micro-credentials and strong designs and things like that. So having faculty engaged in various ways has been great.

Ed Butch: Yeah, that’s amazing. I think that faculty-led piece is huge that if you have them on board, they’re doing something that they want to be doing, then it’s going to make it a lot easier to really get that system up and running then. But then I want to also look at the student and employer side also, because I think that’s interesting because there is still that, as you mentioned earlier, higher ed in general has just moved to that accepting phase. So I feel like employers and students are maybe a little bit behind that. In, again, your work and the research you’ve done, is there any evidence that you’ve come across that you see micro-credentialing having an impact on hiring worker advancement or student success in general?

Anne Reed: Yeah, I do think really what I was talking about with the slope of enlightenment is that we’re kind of moving towards getting a more nuanced understanding of the actual impact. And there’s research that’s coming out, but we don’t yet have longitudinal data to show long-term impact. So I guess I would be cautious about overstating the evidence. So for example, we shouldn’t claim that earning a micro-credential would directly cause someone to get a job, a promotion or a specific wage increase, because micro-credentials are really just one part of the larger learning continuum, which also can include prior experience, degrees, networking internships, employer partnerships, things like that. And so the impact question I think really needs to be framed with that sort of nuance. And so rather than looking for a simple sort of one-to-one causal line, I think we should really look for patterns of contribution.

So rather than asking, did the micro-credential loan get someone hired? Instead, how did this credential contribute to skill development, confidence, visibility, advancement, access to opportunity? So like I said, just a more nuanced kind of questioning. So the goal is not to prove that micro-credentials are like a magic bullet or have the same impact as degrees, but to really understand where they add value for whom, under what conditions and how we can improve and keep improving.

Ed Butch: Yeah, definitely. And so has your office, is that something that you all have done in terms of maybe even having conversations or doing some qualitative surveys with both employers and students in terms of getting some of that feedback?

Anne Reed: Yeah. Yeah. But so far it has only been short-term. So immediately after a student earns a micro-credential asking about the perceived value. And so now I just started probably in the last six months collaborating with our alumni engagement to do more long-term follow-up and to also make sure that we’re not just asking about the student’s perspective or the student outcomes, which are really important. They’re most important, but also making sure that we’re understanding, like you said, you refer to micro-credential ecosystem. And so also talking with employers and our industry partners. So the actual research and the outputs of that research are TBD, but it’s an exciting time.

Ed Butch: Yeah. Oh, it definitely is. It definitely is.

Anne Reed: A lot of work to be done.

Ed Butch: Yeah. And I guess to just to expand on that a little bit in terms of return on investment, I think for both the university and the students especially, not just looking at the financial side of things, but the value that they’re adding, the career outcomes, the learning outcomes, what does that look like, I guess as some of that work that you mentioned that still needs to be done, what does that look like maybe for you in the next couple of years?

Anne Reed: Yeah, that’s a great question too. So I think institutions really should think about ROI holistically, not just in terms of financial calculation. So it’s not as simple as how much revenue we’re generating or whatever that might be. And to do that, we really need to be intentional about designing a micro-credential program from the start, really defining the goals, because different programs might have different goals. Some might be designed to deepen expertise in a role while others will be designed as a pathway into the university or to build towards larger credentials. So they’re different in terms of what the goals are. But if we understand and recognize and clearly articulate those goals, then we can begin to or start from the beginning of collecting the evidence to demonstrate whether or not those goals have been met. Institutions should also examine learning outcomes, learner confidence, skill development, persistence.

I think I said all of these things already, progression into larger credentials. And as well as the institutional value really needs to be part of the equation, because we’re investing time and resources. And so think about collecting evidence on whether or not the micro-credential helps to build stronger employer partnerships, new learner populations, improved responsiveness to workforce needs, things like that. So I think that very important thing is to think about micro-credentials in terms of equity and access. Are we offering micro-credentials that provide opportunity for more types of learners, for example? Are we expanding our population of learners and meeting needs of more types of learners? I think that’s a really important thing to think about. And also just building evidence collection into the program from the beginning, not after the fact. That’s really critical.

Ed Butch: Perfect. Thank you. So as we wrap up here, I always like to have my guests look into the future a little bit. So as we look 3, 5, 10 years down the road here, what is going to differentiate an institution that has a successful micro-credential ecosystem from one that doesn’t?

Anne Reed: So I can’t predict the future, but I would say… Oh yeah. So that actually reminds me of I did a presentation recently and it was all about micro-credentials and the future of higher education. And I was on my way traveling to this event. And I thought, wow, what am I going to say? I can’t predict the future, but this quote popped into my mind that we can’t predict the future, but we can prepare for an unpredictable future.

Ed Butch: Ah, yes. Very true.

Anne Reed: And so that’s, I think, important for institutions and learners alike. Learners should be able to acquire and showcase skills exactly when they need them and pivot if something is not working in their career, they should be able to gain skills from an organization that they respect. They should be able to gain new skills without having to earn another degree, for example. And so by offering micro-credentials, our institutions can be more flexible and relevant.

I think in three to five years, an effective institution is really going to see learning as a continuum, an ever evolving process, not just getting students in the door for four years and then saying goodbye and good luck, but really having ongoing engagement with learners who want to come back to the institution because they know that institution’s trusted and they know that they can gain the skills that they need, whether those skills are related to their degree that they pursued at the institution or whether they’re different skills, whether they’re skills that we don’t even know about now that we can’t predict. And so I think that that sort of flexibility is really important. And also it’s really interesting that I think micro-credentials are more relevant now than ever before because of AI.

I think that micro-credentials have already pushed boundaries in terms of assessing learning authentically and making sure that learners can demonstrate learning so they’re not just collecting knowledge, but they’re gaining skills that they can prove and show and demonstrate. And so micro-credentials, an institution that offers micro-credentials that pushes teaching towards more applied and evidence-based learning. And visible evidence of skill, I think is something that will help to prove that we’re doing something right.

Ed Butch: And I really like that you mentioned, just before the AI piece there, which I think is also very important and very true, talking about engaging those, coming back and things like that. So I think that’s why it’s important that you mentioned, I think, in your last answer about engaging with your alumni engagement office. And a student who’s five years out from a degree might be thinking, “Well, maybe this degree wasn’t what I was thinking it was. Maybe I could go back and get something, but they don’t want to do a second bachelor’s or a master’s or something like that. But let’s look at what credentialing options there are in some of these areas that could help them maybe get into a new role.” So I think that alumni engagement office piece is really key.

Anne Reed: Yeah, I agree. I agree. I agree. And I also agree that we really should think of micro-credentials as providing more opportunities, more options for more types of learners, right?

Ed Butch: Yeah.

Anne Reed: Regardless of where they are in terms of their career or their age or whatever it might be, education, higher education is no longer get a degree, get a job, stay in that job for your life until you retire. We have to be continuously learning and gaining new skills and staying relevant. So I think that micro-credentials, like I said, they’re not a magic bullet, but they’re one piece of that.

Ed Butch: Piece of the puzzle.

Anne Reed: Piece of the puzzle. That’s right.

Ed Butch: Yes, exactly. Well, awesome. Thank you so much for the conversation. This was great. I learned a lot from it. So I really appreciate you taking the time to talk to me today.

Anne Reed: Thank you so much, Ed. I’m honored to be here. Thanks so much.

Ed Butch: I invite all of our listeners to visit citiprogram.org to learn more about our courses and webinars on research, ethics, compliance, and higher education. I look forward to bringing you more expert guests to discuss what’s happening on campus. Special thanks to our line producer, Evelyn Fornell, production and distribution support provided by Raymond Longaray and Megan Stuart.