Use of the EDCI Issuer to issue micro-credentials
Best practices Use of the EDCI Issuer to issue micro-credentials Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Fremework/methodology | Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public), Learners (STEM background), Learners (Non-STEM background). DIS4SME DIS4SME Lisa Bilotti Giacomo Martirano Across Europe, there is a rapidly growing demand for digital skills and for mechanisms that formally recognise competences achieved through both formal and non‑formal education. Within this context, the DIS4SME (Data Interoperability Skills for SMEs) project contributes to the upskilling and reskilling of small and medium‑sized enterprises through targeted training on location data interoperability.As a consortium member, Epsilon Italia aimed to ensure that the learning outcomes achieved by participants in its courses were recognisable, verifiable, and aligned with EU policy frameworks for micro‑credentials. The challenge? The main challenge was to identify a cost‑effective and reliable system for issuing digital micro‑credentials compliant with the EU Recommendation on Micro‑Credentials.Most commercially available badge platforms were found to be limited in one or more of the following ways:Non‑compliance with the EU micro‑credentials frameworkRequirement for expensive licences or annual feesDependence on restrictive national accreditation or proprietary systemsThese limitations hindered training providers from adopting micro‑credentials effectively and consistently across European contexts. Our solution Secure, authentic, EU‑compliant credentials: the Digital badges issued via the EDCI Issuer are fully aligned with the EU micro‑credentials framework and guaranteed by a qualified e‑seal.Interoperability and transparency: Credentials can be embedded directly in the Europass CV, enhancing recognition of skills across Europe.Cost‑effectiveness: Epsilon Italia achieved credential issuance without paying licence fees or using proprietary systems.Scalability: The organisation plans to issue at least 100 digital credentials during the first year of implementation. Outcomes The membership to the EFMD Global Network, and the eligibility to EQUIS accreditation were the first steps achieved in the process of EQUIS accreditation. The achievement of these milestones resulted in a set of outcomes: 15% increase in recruitment of international students; 1 new international exchange program with an EQUIS internationally accredited HEI; International recognition in accreditation of educational offer in advanced digital skills, with one new co-funded project with other EQUIS accredited HEIs; Improvement in national and international ranking for master programs Integration of EQUIS methodology with European approach to micro-credentials to further increase the quality level of educational offer. Key takeaways Integrate a qualified e‑seal, as required by the EDCI Issuer, to ensure legal authenticity and integrity. Update internal processes early to guarantee smooth technical integration with the EU’s credential infrastructure. Invest in staff training for managing digital credentialing workflows and maintaining compliance with EU standards. Avoid dependence on commercial badge platforms by adopting open EU‑provided tools that foster transparency and trust. Embed credentials within the Europass CV to enhance learners’ employability and cross‑sector recognition. Build long‑term collaboration with technical partners to sustain e‑seal management and alignment with evolving EU frameworks. Learn more here
A comprehensive accreditation system of educational offering: International accreditation of awarding HEI
Best practices A comprehensive accreditation system of educational offering: International accreditation of awarding HEI Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Fremework/methodology | Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public). xAIM xAIM Maria Chiara Demartini In 2020 the xAIM consortium aimed at designing a high-quality master program in explainable AI applied to healthcare management. Although each beneficiary was supposed to contribute in term of the design and the teaching staff, the vocational master program had to be delivered by one HEI only. To ensure high-level standards of quality delivered at each phase of the design, organization, roll-out and monitoring of master program, the consortium looked for internationally recognised systems for accreditation to show outstanding excellence in quality assurance.Moreover, one of the sustainability strategies formulated by the consortium entailed the delivery of single modules of the xAIM master programs, beyond the entire master program. The challenge? The xAIM consortium faced multiple challenges: As an international consortium, xAIM didn’t want to rely on one single national regulation for the accreditation of the master program, in order to promote an internationally recognised high-quality master program. Since only one HEI was expected to award the master diploma, other national regulations were not necessarily fit for purpose. A broader and more international quality assurance framework was expected to be adopted for the xAIM master program. The sustainability strategy included opportunities to deliver single modules, beyond the whole master programs. Hence, a comprehensive accreditation system was needed, including both bachelor’s, master’s programs, and short courses. Our solution An internationally recognised accreditation system was selected to quality assure the entire educational offer of the awarding institution. It is worth noting that there are alternative international accreditation systems for business schools. However, the consortium decided to apply for the EFMD quality improvement system (EQUIS), managed by EFMD Global, since it has a European focus. The following explains how each of the identified challenges are addressed: High-quality standards in master’s programs accreditation Challenge: One single national regulation for the accreditation of the master program could be partial and lack some international requirements in terms of accreditation of master programsHow the EQUIS accreditation process facilitates solutions:EQUIS is a comprehensive principle-based system to improve the quality of awarding institutions;• It has strongly agreed upon principles, though flexible implementation, based on national context and local needs;• EQUIS provides learning communities, which are focused on specific principles (e.g., internationalisation) or thematic areas (e.g., the role of AI in educational offer). Difficulty in selecting another (set of) national regulatory frameworkChallenge: Since only one HEI was expected to award the master diploma, other national regulations were not necessarily fit for purpose How the EQUIS accreditation process facilitates solutions:• EQUIS is an internationally recognized standard, acknowledging national context, but promoting a standardised international process for accreditation of HEIs• EQUIS was initially developed in and for European universities, without a specific national framework in mind Need for a supranational accreditation system Challenge: Need for an international quality assurance framework to overcome the limits of national regulationsHow the EQUIS accreditation process facilitates solutions:• It is an internationally recognized standard, based on a benchmarking approach• Although it was initially intended to improve the quality of the educational offer of European universities, EFMD has now extended its scope both geographically, with a global outreach of EQUIS accredited institutions, and institutionally, covering the accreditation of non-university training institutions too; • EQUIS has a strong experience in the field of accreditation of business schools, although its principles and processes are adapting to the ever-changing international educational landscape. Comprehensive accreditation system Challenge: Need to assure short courses and longer programsHow the EQUIS accreditation process facilitates solutions:• EQUIS is an institutional accreditation system covering bachelor’s, master’s, PhD’s, executive programs, and other educational offer;• Being a comprehensive quality improvement system, EQUIS provides support to accredited HEIs in enhancing the quality of the entire educational offer, from multiple and interlinked perspectives;• EQUIS provides HEIs with a global quality recognition of their educational offer. Outcomes The membership to the EFMD Global Network, and the eligibility to EQUIS accreditation were the first steps achieved in the process of EQUIS accreditation. The achievement of these milestones resulted in a set of outcomes: 15% increase in recruitment of international students; 1 new international exchange program with an EQUIS internationally accredited HEI; International recognition in accreditation of educational offer in advanced digital skills, with one new co-funded project with other EQUIS accredited HEIs; Improvement in national and international ranking for master programs Integration of EQUIS methodology with European approach to micro-credentials to further increase the quality level of educational offer. Key takeaways Institutional accreditation (e.g., EQUIS) is key when HEIs and training institutions are looking for a comprehensive accreditation system for their educational offer. Being principle-based, the EQUIS accreditation process is a replicable, yet flexible, strategic benchmarking tool to enhance the quality of the HEI’s educational offer. Institutional accreditation systemWhat worked: The accreditation system is not targeting a single program, or a short course, but the whole HEI or business school awarding the diplomas or certifications.This approach ensures accreditation is coherent throughout the HEI’s educational offerReplicable Lesson:Adopting comprehensive accreditation systems can lower the time to seek for accreditation of one additional program or courseThe whole institution is involved in the quality assurance process, leading to change in the mindset Standardised and widely adopted accreditation systemWhat worked: EQUIS is an internationally recognised and globally adopted accreditation system.In order to get immediate international recognition of the high-quality of its educational offer, the HEI can look for a widely adopted international standard.Replicable Lesson:An initial scope of the accreditation systems available in the market can help selecting the one best fitting the training institution’s needs.Benchmarking of leading HEIs can support the choice of an institutional accreditation system and its implementation Lessons learnt on the institutional accreditation system can be shared among partner HEIsWhat worked: More experienced HEIs in institutional accreditation systems can mentor other partner HEIs, in the same consortium, in their journey towards institutional accreditation.Replicable Lesson:Sharing achieved outcomes
Inter-institutional cooperation for accrediting EU joint programmes at national level – the case of ManagiDiTH Master
Best practices Inter-institutional cooperation for accrediting EU joint programmes at national level – the case of ManagiDiTH Master Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Education programmes/courses| Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public), Policymakers (Member State). ManagiDiTH ManagiDiTH Maria do Carmo Gomes The Managing Digital Transformation in the Health Sector (ManagiDiTH) is a four-year project, launched in January 2023 and funded by the European Union through the Digital Europe Programme – Digital Advanced Skills, with the aim of creating a new master’s degree curriculum that equips healthcare professionals with the competencies needed to develop digital services in the health sector. To achieve this objective, seven consortium partners from three European countries are involved in the project, including: ISCTE – University Institute of Lisbon (Portugal), Laurea University of Applied Sciences (Finland), Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece), Instituto de Telecomunicações (Portugal), Whymob, Lda. (Portugal), Clinipower Finland Ltd (Finland), Mundiserviços – Companhia Portuguesa de Serviços e Gestão, Lda (Portugal).The programme’s objectives include the development of training references for level 7 of the European Qualifications Framework in the digital health sector, the creation of a multidisciplinary learning ecosystem, and the introduction of a pedagogical model that prioritises problem-oriented learning strategies supported by digital tools.The innovative pedagogical and technical skills of the consortium partners will be leveraged to create an integrated Master programme that builds on projects that have already been implemented within the consortium. Furthermore, there are several associated partners in the project, including Health Cluster Portugal, Thessaloniki’s Association of Women with Breast Cancer “Alma Zois”, Finnish Diabetes Association, European Network of Living Labs Ivzw, The Union For Senior Services – Valli, Portuguese Red Cross, Adhd Hellas, and Hovi Group Oy.Overall, the ManagiDiTH curriculum is a ground-breaking initiative that aims to transform healthcare systems and services across Europe, making them more efficient and effective. By equipping healthcare professionals with specialized digital skills, the programme will ensure that graduates are well-prepared to succeed in the rapidly evolving digital healthcare sector. The challenge? Different national accreditation frameworks (procedures, forms and calendar) were found, which required a reinforced inter-institutional cooperation among the 3 Higher Education Institutions in order to get the Master programme accredited in Finland, Greece and Portugal. Our solution Having a sequential submission of the accreditation processes throughout the first 1.5 years of the project. First, the accreditation of the Master was awarded in Finland, as Laurea University of Applied Sciences does not require a submission to a national accreditation authority; secondly, Portugal beneffited from the previous accreditation of Laurea, to submit the full process of accreditation to the national authority (A3ES); and finally, AUTH has benefitted from the previous two accreditation processes as well as all the documentation and information collected and organised previously.This has required the open and transparent sharing of all information among HEI partners, and the storage of the three set of common files that were used at the best convenience of each partner, in order to complete the necessary information for each of the national processes.This approach enabled the Master Program to start even without the accreditation process being completed in Greece, and at the same time, it was important for the Greek partner to have already the Master running for showcasing in concrete how the Programme was delivered, considering also its innovative nature of fully joint design, delivery, and online learning. Outcomes The EU joint Master Programme ManagiDiTH was accredited in three EU countries (at Month 13 in Finland, Month 17 in Portugal, and Month 23 in Greece) even though the first cohort has started in Month 20 (September 2024). No delays were registered and 187 students started their studies in the first edition. Key takeaways Having an open and transparent communication among partners of the consortium since Day 1 of the Project about the accreditation requirements and challenges (top priority on the implementation of the project) Sharing all the documents and information regarding the national accreditation requirements (forms, calendar, bodies and services to be involved in each HEI) Planning the national accreditation processes in a sequential manner and benefit from previous accreditation in one or two (or more) EU countries Permanent contact with National Authorities, in particular, for explaining the specificities of these innovative models for EU joint programmes funded by EU – DEP (not an Erasmus Mundus Joint Programme) Mutual support of each partner to the national accreditation processes (i.e. Laurea’s official documentation was a key element to assure that the accreditation was granted in Portugal; AUTH beneffited from the Official Decision of the Portuguese Accreditation Authotiry (A3ES)). Learn more here
Evaluating micro-credential-readiness level of the provided courses
Best practices Evaluating micro-credential-readiness level of the provided courses Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Framework/methodology | Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public). BioNT BioNT Tanja Ninkovic In 2022, the Council of Europe recommended the adoption of micro-credentials as a way of certifying small, high-quality learning units. Designing a course that qualifies for a micro-credential requires rigorous quality assurance, systematic record keeping, and clear assessment of learners’ knowledge. These features make micro-credential-bearing courses especially valuable for first-time job seekers and professionals seeking a career change.BioNT is a Digital Europe funded project which develops and delivers online training for job seekers and SME members, in order to equip them with new skills required for their career progression. For this, certificates of the taken courses, which have strong quality control mechanisms, are more beneficial than of the courses without such structured quality control. Micro-credentials regulations by the Council of Europe in 2022 provide a clear and streamlined list of requirements that when followed ensure quality of the courses and of the certificate. The impact of this regulation is twofold: It strengthens the interconnectedness of educational systems and supports greater learner mobility. It establishes micro-credentials as a trusted quality-control tool that, when widely applied, ensures lifelong learning courses are consistent in their content, preparation, promotion, and documentation. This, in turn, increases trust in the certificates issued and supports more reliable hiring processes. BioNT courses were not initially planned with the micro-credentials in mind (as the project was written before the Recommendations for the European approach to micro-credentials was published), but the consortium worked extensively to ensure good quality of the courses. During the project lifetime, the micro-credentials approach for the existing training framework and already developed courses was assessed. Here, the BioNT project describes the assessment of the planned and delivered courses and their fulfilment of micro-credential requirements, and identifies what would need to be changed in order to formally issue them. The challenge? For many training providers who wish to implement micro-credentials for their existing courses, including BioNT, the main challenge lies in determining how well existing courses align with the formal requirements for issuing micro-credentials. While the courses may already follow strong quality standards, it is often unclear which aspects fully meet the criteria and which fall short. Therefore, a practical tool to support training developers and providers in the evaluation of the level of course readiness was needed. This tool would help to identify eventual gaps in compliance, and to understand precisely which elements of the course design, delivery, and documentation would need to be adapted. The Recommendation by the Council is a legal document which does list requirements, but does not provide guidelines on their practical meaning and is therefore difficult to implement for many training developers who are not dealing with policy or legal documents on a regular basis. Organisation providing lifelong learning directed courses as a main or side activity invest substantial effort in designing and delivering training, training materials, information, and documentation. To prove the training quality, these organisation could highly benefit from applying the micro-credentials framework and for this, they need to understand how much their offers already align with the requirements, and identify the gaps and aspects they need to improve. Our solution To solve these challenges, BIoNT created a practical evaluation form which lists mandatory and recommended elements of the micro-credential requirements, and guides the form users to evaluate their course against these elements. Specifically, the form prompts to: Check whether the courses meet all mandatory elements required for issuing a micro-credential. Identify gaps that prevent compliance. Collect structured information on course design, delivery, and quality assurance procedures. Plan the structure, dissemination, documentation and delivery of courses in alignment with the micro-credentials requirements for lifelong learning courses. The form is implemented as an Excel sheet containing a checklist of required tasks based on the Council of Europe recommendations. Each question is supported by definitions, examples, and fields where training developers and providers can add concrete information alongside checking compliance.The form is freely available for download here: https://biont-training.eu/training.html. Outcomes The BioNT consortium used the form the form to assess all the training offers. This provided a highly valuable comparative overview of the structural differences between courses and highlighted which quality elements needed strengthening to meet the micro-credential standards.Even if a course organiser chooses not to pursue full micro-credential certification—for example, in the BioNT case, where some courses cannot include learner identification or formal assessment for confidentiality reasons—the form still adds value. It helps clarify which elements prevent compliance and whether adjustments are possible or even desirable.The form has already gained recognition: it was selected through a competitive process for presentation at the European core facilities meeting organised by the CTLS association, where it attracted strong interest from peers. Key takeaways Anyone interested in evaluating their own courses can download the form from the BioNT website (https://biont-training.eu/training.html). Completing it requires approximately 15 minutes per training offer.We recommend answering all questions: Multiple-choice options are based directly on the Council of Europe’s micro-credential recommendations. When a mandatory element is missing, the corresponding field automatically turns red. Text boxes allow organisers to document additional information; when this field is mandatory, it is written in the column on the right. At the end of the form, users will also find supporting resources, including:o A learning objectives ontology based on Bloom’s taxonomy.o A description of the European Qualifications Framework (EQF) levels and their meaning. Learn more here
Privacy-Preserving Training Format for Live and Self-Paced Learning
Best practices Privacy-Preserving Training Format for Live and Self-Paced Learning Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Programme development | Action: Education programmes/courses | Beneficiaries: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public), Learners (STEM background), Learners (non-STEM background). BioNT BioNT Isabela Paredes Cisneros Silvia Di Giorgio BioNT (Bio Network for Training) is a consortium of nine European partners, including academic institutions and SMEs, funded by the Digital Europe Programme. The project aims to deliver high-quality training on digital skills relevant to the biotechnology and biomedical sectors, targeting both job-seekers and employees looking to enhance their skills. The primary audience includes participants who may be in vulnerable situations (job-seekers) or require heightened privacy (industry professionals handling sensitive information). The consortium needed to develop a format that would respect privacy concerns while enabling the creation of reusable content from live sessions. The challenge? Our project faced three interconnected challenges: Many participants, particularly job-seekers and industry professionals from SMEs, expressed reluctance to fully engage in training sessions if they might be recorded or identified. Job-seekers feared this could negatively impact their future job prospects, whilst industry professionals were hesitant to disclose their affiliation or display their faces, as this could reveal competitive information or interest in upskilling that they preferred to keep confidential. Creating high-quality, reusable self-paced learning materials from live training sessions typically requires capturing live discussions and interactions, which conflicts with participants’ privacy requirements. Traditional recording approaches that include participant faces, names, and verbal questions would have required extensive post-production video editing to anonymise content before publishing as self-paced learning materials. This would have significantly increased production costs and time requirements, potentially making the creation of such resources unsustainable within our project constraints. Without addressing these challenges, we risked low enrolment numbers from our target audience and would have significantly limited our ability to create valuable, cost-effective self-paced learning materials for broader impact. Our solution We developed and refined a hybrid training delivery format that prioritises participant privacy whilst enabling the creation of reusable content: Restrictive participation format: We used a delivery format that restricted trainee participation to viewing only, without the ability to speak, share video, or use chat functions. This ensured that recordings captured only the instructor’s content without any participant information. Text-based interaction system: We implemented a collaborative document platform (HedgeDoc) hosted on our own servers where participants could anonymously ask questions and provide feedback during the session. Participants were able to interact without providing any personal data. Carefully structured recording approach: Training sessions were recorded to capture only the instructor’s screen, voice, and presentation materials. The collaborative document was monitored and cleaned of any potentially identifying information before being included in recordings. Helper system: We assigned dedicated helpers who monitored the collaborative document in real-time, answering questions and providing support without disrupting the flow of the training or revealing participant identities. Outcomes The implementation of this privacy-preserving format yielded several positive outcomes: Efficient creation of self-paced learning materials: The format allowed us to produce high-quality recordings without any post-production editing to remove participant information, significantly reducing resource requirements for creating self-paced learning materials. Positive trainer adaptation: Despite initial hesitation from trainers who were accustomed to fully interactive live sessions, we received positive feedback about the format’s effectiveness. Participant comfort: Feedback indicated that participants appreciated the anonymity provided, with many noting they felt more comfortable asking questions in a text-based format without revealing their identity. This format also gives room to the participants who would usually not ask questions live, making the format more inclusive. Sustainable model for future training: The format has been successfully replicated across all our training workshops, providing a proven template for future initiatives that can be implemented with minimal resources. Key takeaways Based on our experience, organisations implementing similar training formats should consider: Balance privacy with interaction: While restricting traditional participation methods, ensure alternative channels for meaningful interaction that preserve anonymity. Prepare trainers adequately: Provide proper orientation for trainers who may be accustomed to seeing and hearing participants, helping them adapt to text-based interaction systems. Establish clear helper protocols: Define specific roles for helpers monitoring the text-based interaction system, including guidelines for anonymising questions before addressing them. Design for direct recording use: Structure training sessions assuming that recordings will be used as-is without editing, including careful planning of screen sharing and demonstration segments. Create trainer-helper communication channels: Establish private communication methods between trainers and helpers to coordinate responses and manage participant questions efficiently. Test thoroughly before implementation: Conduct pilot sessions to identify potential privacy risks or technical issues with your chosen platforms and tools. Document the process: Create clear documentation of your approach to make it easily replicable across different training topics and by different training teams. Learn more here
Creating Blockchain Training for the Food Supply Chain utilising End-user Engagement
Best practices Creating blockchain training for the food supply chain utilising end-user engagement Users: Policymakers (EU), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Programme development | Action: Education programmes/courses | Beneficiaries:Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) TRUSTFOOD TRUSTFOOD Anastasia Vlachou The TRUST-FOOD project aims to upskill SMEs and job seekers in the food supply chain (FSC) with advanced digital competencies in blockchain technology. Recognising the diverse needs across this sector, the consortium prioritised tailoring training programmes to ensure practical impact and uptake. As student mobility and such types of degrees are on the rise, there is a need to refine common assessment criteria. In collaboration with accreditation agencies, ministries, and employers, JEDI explores the feasibility and impact of this label and promotes innovative learning methodologies that highlight European values in joint programmes. The challenge? A key challenge was designing training content that is both technically advanced and practically applicable to professionals with varied digital literacy. Without early engagement, content risked being misaligned with learners’ needs and industry contexts. Our solution A key success factor in the TRUST-FOOD project was the early and structured engagement of trainees before developing educational content. Under Task 3.1 (“Probing Trainees”), potential learners were consulted to assess their familiarity, needs, and interest in blockchain technologies through surveys. This feedback directly informed the design of the educational ecosystem, ensuring relevance, practicality, and learner-centered outcomes. This proactive involvement of end-users is a replicable best practice that enhances training relevance and effectiveness. Outcomes Strategic Value The proactive involvement of trainees helped uncover unexpected learning gaps, allowing the team to tailor content with greater precision. The approach fostered stronger alignment between learner needs and training objectives, enhancing the perceived value of the programme. Process and Efficiency Gains Course development was faster and more focused, as insights from trainees eliminated guesswork. The initiative benefited from fewer mismatches between expectations and delivery, improving resource efficiency. Key takeaways Engaging learners early in the design process builds trust and ensures training is tailored to their real needs. In the TRUST-FOOD project, conducting surveys was only the first step; the real value came from thoroughly analysing the data and being flexible enough to adapt course plans based on the findings—even when they challenged initial assumptions. We also learned that simple, well-designed feedback tools are key to maximising participation and collecting actionable insights. For similar initiatives, it’s essential to allocate enough time and resources not just for consultation, but for interpreting and applying the feedback effectively. Learn more here
A light-weight approach to certify digital skills training as microcredentials in DEP projects
Best practices A light-weight approach to certify digital skills training as microcredentials in DEP projects Users: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Education programmes/courses | Beneficiaries: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private) EURIDICE EURIDICE Hans Akkermans Anna Bon In our DEP-project EURIDICE, we have designed a method for quality assurance of the digital skills trainings provided by our SME and other non-academic project partners. It is the desire, in the Digital Europe Program, of the EU Commission that all course providers are able to hand out to all learners/students (if they wish so) an official certificate stating their achievements in terms of learning outcomes, including the associated amount of work done by learners/students. This is called a microcredential. So the stakeholders are: non-academic training institutes, higher academic education institutes, trainees and students, the labor market in Europe. The challenge? The recognition of non-academic courses in Europe is still not formalised, despite the need to recognise micro-credentials for life-long learning. As starting point, the EU has described (see the European Union leaflet A European Approach to Micro-Credentials, updated Dec 2021) a set of standards to which courses need to comply, to become a microcredential. What is lacking here is the procedure for Quality Assurance. MicroCredentials certainly carry the risk of a further bureaucratisation of higher education with evermore forms to be filled in by staff, box-ticking “accountability” and layers of so-called managerial “control”. So it is important to uphold the autonomy and experience of academic, education and research staff as being leading here. And to state this explicitly in the procedures.The issue here is: how to do Quality Assurance of non-academic, non-accredited courses? And who is entitled to do so? The issue is how to formalise trust, knowledge and authority.In summary: How can we include the SME short-track training modules into academic curricula, or provide a valid certificate of quality to the trainees? How can we assess the quality of the educational offering from SMEs and non-academic partners in our DEP project? Our solution We propose a method of assessment of courses, which we call the EURIDICE MicroCredentials Approach. It starts with the establishment of a so-called MicroCredential Board of academic senior experts from universities, companies or sector organisations. Following the following QA (see below), they are entitled to hand out to training providers the right to add to the certificates they hand out to their learners/students a EURIDICE-level “stamp”, as it were: EURIDICE Quality-Assured MicroCredential. The QA procedure is as follows, to ensure transparency and simplicity: Course providers submit a description of a course to be accepted as a EURIDICE MicroCredential to the Board. The MicroCredential Board validates that this description satisfies the EU guidelines (see the template given in Annex I of the 2022 Council of Europe Recommendation (https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32022H0627(02)). As part of this, the MicroCredential Board validates that there is a quality assurance system in place, and if so what its nature is. In most cases this will be an existing and established one (accreditation systems, special appointed committee in place (e.g. exam committee), review or advisory boards etc.), and the MicroCredential Board simply references this. (Thus, we are not going to redo the quality assurance work itself!). In a few cases, if there is no defined (external) quality assurance system in place, the MicroCredential Board offers the facility to carry out a EURIDICE review. This takes place in the form of an academic peer review that is fully analogous to the peer review established quality system of research publications. Peer-review system[The role of a submitted course is thus analogous to a paper submitted to a journal or conference, the role of the MicroCredential Board is then analogous to the editorial board of a scientific journal, and it then acts upon the expert advice of appointed knowledgeable reviewers, to make an argued decision (accept or not).] Outcomes The EURIDICE project develops courses for students (international joint master DIGISOC, see https://digitalsociety4innovation.eu), plus self-standing modules for teachers and professionals in the sectors of Education, Culture and Communication. In order to speed up the microcredential work, all courses in the respective course catalogues are described following the European standard elements template provided in Annex I of the above-mentioned EU Council Recommendation of 16 June 2022. These course catalogues for students, teachers and professionals are produced and made public as upcoming (mid-term) deliverables. The idea is then that multiple courses (or even the catalogue as a whole) can be submitted in one go as a batch to the MicroCredential Board for consideration.Principle of proportionality: Both the MicroCredential course description template and the peer review mechanism make it possible to scale the course writing and review effort, in the same way that in research a 6-page conference article is handled differently in review effort than a whole PhD thesis or textbook. Key takeaways Our experience is that microcredentials are generally seen as a very complex issue. It is therefore advisable to keep things as simple as possible: A course description according to the European standard elements template (Annex I of the Council 2022 Recommendation) typically already contains the information that teachers would write anyway in any decent course description or study guide for students, so it is possible to avoid extra bureaucratic burdens for teaching staff. Course descriptions are to be concise, as usual in a study guide (per course no more than 1-2 pages, and a limited number of learning outcomes). Simplicity and flexibility of templates, formats and procedures is furthermore important in view of the need to respect (in fact, benefit from) the expertise and autonomy of staff, education and research, and to avoid a counter-productive top-down approach. Principle of subsidiarity: The MicroCredential Board has a (limited) validating role, it is not going to redo QA procedures when they are already institutionally in place (such as official exam boards or supervisory/advisory bodies). The peer review mechanism is intended as a back-up system when an institutional QA system does not (yet) exist. Uptake:
From Classroom to Collaboratorium: Rethinking Learning Spaces in European Joint Masters
Best practices From Classroom to Collaboratorium: Rethinking Learning Spaces in European Joint Masters Users: Training Providers (Private), Training Providers (Public) | Theme: Programme Development | Action: Education programme/course | Beneficiaries: Learners (STEM background), Learners (Non-STEM background). EURIDICE EURIDICE Emiliano Grimaldi Pietro Nunziante Contr: Anna Bon, Hans Akkermans In international joint master studies, students/learners and educators are inherently spread over different locations and countries. Only remote/online teaching is not a good educational approach. Community formation through in-person and face-to-face contact and collaborative work are also needed, and must be blended with remote virtual components.Students with different educational backgrounds, from different institutions, countries and cultures, collaborate in challenge-based master-level research and educational projects for societal impact. Building a community of learners is key to successful learning. The challenge? How can we build and educate young professionals to be both skilled and reflective for the Digital Society? How should these innovative curricula look like? How can we give our students a sense of belonging to a group, in an international, digitally connected context? How can we avoid that every student is working together while being alone behind their computer screen? Our solution Our proposed solution was coined: Collaboratorium. This is both a hybrid digital/physical interconnected workspace, and an educational concept. It combines onsite in-presence classrooms and workspaces, connected via digital collaboration bridges. In a Collaboratorium approach students tackle real-world “wicked” problems and work in small interdisciplinary, and often transdisciplinary teams, in the design of socio-technical solutions, through user-centered and community-centered approaches. Outcomes What have we already achieved through the implementation of the educational concept of the Collaboratorium? To gain and share experiences with this innovative educational concept, EURIDICE partners have implemented a series of pilots, through master projects. All projects embody the societally-oriented ambitions and are related to the Sustainable Development Goals. The idea is to co-design and build digital, socio-technical solutions for real world problems formulated with partners in the Global South. Our SME consortium partners are co-supervising a number of these projects, related to food security, health and wellbeing, and adaptation to climate change. Preliminary outcomes, as of 1 February 2025: 15 master theses, produced through this educational concept. Key takeaways Virtual education is efficient to train people remotely, however, presential collaboration is important for human well-being and enhances learning capacity and creativity. We advise to design your education such that groups are together in one space, while virtually communicating with other groups who are remote. A Collaboratorium requires a careful design of both physical spaces, digital international collaboration tools, and virtual spaces in an integrated whole. Learn more here
Accreditation under the European approach – Challenges arising from the different status of national implementation
Best practices Accreditation under the European approach – Challenges arising from the different status of national implementation Users: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private) | Theme: Accreditation and certification | Action: Education programmes/courses | Beneficiaries: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private) DIGITAL4Business DIGITAL4Business Sophie Schulz Horacio Gonzales Velez Dietmar Janetzko The aim of the Digital4Business (D4B) project is the conception and development of a joint Master’s degree program by four (originally six) European Higher Education Institutions (HEIs): the National College of Ireland (Ireland), Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Portugal), Università di Bologna (Italy), and Linköping Universitet (Sweden) in collaboration with partners from industry. One of the milestones in the project is the accreditation of the Master’s program. Here, the consortium opted for an accreditation procedure under the European Approach, an accreditation methodology developed specifically for joint programs. The European Approach was primarily chosen for reasons of efficiency. The main benefits of the European Approach are: (i) it facilitates external quality assurance through the application of common standards and guidelines, which leads to mutual recognition of the accreditation procedure across the participating countries; (ii) it significantly reduces the administrative and organizational burden by applying to one single accreditation body. The European Approach eliminates the need for multiple applications, assessments, and reviews, saving time and resources for institutions. Moreover, instead of undergoing separate accreditation processes in each participating country, joint programs can be assessed once against a common set of standards and with a joint site visit at only one institution/in only one country. Without the European Approach, all four HEIs would have had to carry out individual national accreditation procedures, which would have resulted in significantly more time and effort as well as much higher costs. The challenge? In the accreditation preparation phase, the D4B consortium learned that the European Approach accreditation will only be available and fully recognised in countries that have implemented the European Approach. As the European Approach is only a political commitment and not a legally binding agreement, it requires implementation at the national level. Regarding national implementation, the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education (EQAR) differentiates between three categories: 1) European Approach available to all HEIs, 2) European Approach available to some HEIs or only under specific conditions, 3) European Approach not available to HEIs. The consortium found that Ireland and Portugal fall under the second category and that the European Approach is available at these two institutions. However, this was not the case for Italy and Sweden as these two countries have not implemented the European Approach at national level, which means that a European Approach accreditation is not possible at any HEI from these countries. Our solution The fact that the European Approach is not available in all countries was solved by the decision that only the Ireland and Portugal (both countries have (partly) implemented the European Approach at national level) will be degree-awarding countries. The two HEIs from Sweden and Italy are still fully and actively engaged in the design, implementation and delivery of the program but only act as providing (i.e. non-awarding) institutions. Outcomes The Master’s program was initially accredited with requirements. The accreditation procedure was carried out by ASIIN, a European registered accreditation agency, applying the European Approach. The fulfilment of requirements was completed after six months, which was six months before the official deadline. The Master’s program received full accreditation for a period of six years, which corresponds to the recommendations of the European Approach procedures. Valid until 30 September 2030, the final D4B accreditation is recorded in EQAR Key takeaways HEIs should inform themselves about the national accreditation requirements at an early stage (possibly even before a proposal is submitted). All (academic) partners should have a high degree of flexibility (e.g. with regard to internal resource and budget allocation) in order to be able to react to unexpected problems or changing conditions. This is a lesson learned of particular importance within the D4B project as the consortium had to compensate for the loss of two of the (initially) six universities in the middle of the accreditation process. One had decided to withdraw from the consortium and only remain as an associated partner. The other one was no longer suitable as an academic partner as it was lacking official recognition as a university by the state/ministry. The loss of the two academic partners meant that the modules that had been developed by them had to be redistributed among the four remaining universities. Fortunately, the redistribution worked smoothly thanks to the close cooperation and solution-oriented approach of all partners. Ultimately, the redistribution of modules served as a good opportunity to revise and update the module content. When choosing the European Approach, the consortium, and particularly the academic partners, must be clear from the very outset that this is a joint effort that requires close cooperation, a great deal of coordination, very good planning, and a well-thought-out distribution of responsibilities and tasks. It is very important that all (academic) partners contribute to this joint procedure, in particular for drafting and compiling the necessary documentation to be included in the self-evaluation report. Even if, as mentioned above, the European Approach was chosen for reasons of efficiency and because of the lower administrative burden, the effort involved in preparing a (successful) accreditation procedure should not be underestimated. Compiling the extensive set of application documents is not only very time-consuming, but also reveals some of the content-related, formal and organizational challenges that arise when several higher education institutions from different countries jointly develop and deliver a degree program. The consortium should be very aware of this effort and the high workload from the outset and allow sufficient preparation time (including improvement loops etc.). Learn more here
Bringing Industry to the Classroom: Expert Conferences Connecting Students with Digital Twin Innovation
Best practices Bringing Industry to the Classroom: Expert Conferences Connecting Students with Digital Twin Innovation Users: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private) | Theme: Industry engagement | Action: Education programmes/courses | Beneficiaries: Training providers (public) | Training providers (private) | SMEs | Industry | Learners (non-STEM background) | Learners (STEM background) DIGITWIN4CIUE – Digital Twins for Complex Infrastructures and Urban Ecosystems DIGITWIN4CIUE Beatriz Martin Bautista Cerro Rocío López Espinosa Digital twins represent a rapidly growing field in the built environment. Their adoption by private and public sectors highlights the need for professionals who understand both the technical and strategic value these tools bring to infrastructure planning, design, construction, and operation. To meet this need, the European project DIGITWIN4CIUE aims to “foster collaboration: build a culture of cooperation between academia and industry to drive innovation and develop sustainable, efficient construction practices”. This vision is realised through the Entrepreneurship Pillar of its Centre of Excellence, which promotes initiatives bridging academic knowledge and professional innovation. A flagship action is the Executive Master’s in Digital Twins for Infrastructures and Cities, a specialised programme for professionals and engineers in civil engineering, smart cities, and related fields. It offers training in advanced digital technologies, preparing participants to design, implement, and manage innovative solutions across the infrastructure lifecycle. This academic offer meets labour market needs and supports ongoing professional development, helping organisations stay at the forefront of technological progress. The challenge? In an increasingly competitive environment, with a growing academic offering and rapid technological advancement, prospective students are becoming more discerning in their choice of programmes. Attracting top talent is therefore a strategic priority for the success and sustainability of the DIGITWIN4CIUE project, and an opportunity to strengthen its position as a leader in innovation and digitalisation in the infrastructure sector. This situation posed a challenge during the design of the master’s programme. The aim was to ensure it stood out by combining high-quality education with the practical application of cutting-edge technologies, while aligning with the real needs of the labour market. At the same time, a key question emerged: how can we attract students by offering a programme that is up-to-date, dynamic, and aligned with scientific and technological innovation? Our solution As a response to the identified challenge, the Executive Master’s in Digital Twins for Infrastructures and Cities established the Conference Cycle: a series of public sessions led by global experts that go beyond the conventional applications of digital twins. These events delve into real-world use cases across a variety of sectors—including structural assessment of infrastructures (such as buildings, bridges, tunnels, and dams), transport and mobility, the construction industry, hydrology, and energy. The sessions provide valuable insights into how digital twins can improve asset maintenance, enable data-driven decision-making, and increase resource efficiency. The conferences are held on a biweekly basis, in both virtual and in-person formats, across the five partner universities delivering the master’s programme. Through this initiative, students benefit from continuous exposure to industry leaders, researchers, and professionals, allowing them to: Engage directly with key stakeholders in the field; Gain up-to-date knowledge on the latest developments in digital twin technologies; Participate in discussions that bridge academic learning with real-world industry demands. Outcomes This initiative has successfully created a dynamic learning and knowledge-transfer environment by bringing master’s students into direct contact with leading voices in the field. The Conference Cycle has featured guest speakers from renowned institutions such as the University of Colorado Boulder (USA), Technische Universität Dresden and Universität der Bundeswehr München (Germany), and Edinburgh Napier University (United Kingdom), as well as from prominent companies and organisations including ARUP, the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), AdvaNet Hungary, SENER, and Bentley Systems, among others. As a result, the master’s programme has gained increasing international visibility. This is evidenced by the significant growth of our communication and outreach channels – driven largely by the Conference Cycle – with over 3,000 followers on LinkedIn and approximately 10,000 views on YouTube. Notably, more than 80% of prospective students now discover the programme through one of these two key platforms. The initiative has also fostered a learning environment centred on continuous development, where students are encouraged to engage in meaningful knowledge exchange beyond formal assessments, driven by curiosity, critical thinking, and professional ambition. In addition, the in-person sessions of the Conference Cycle provide valuable networking opportunities, enabling students to connect directly with guest speakers during dedicated engagement moments. These face-to-face interactions are essential for building professional networks, exploring career trajectories, and stimulating future collaborations within the fast-evolving digital twin ecosystem. Key takeaways Schedule integration within academic hours: Embedding Conference Cycle sessions within the master’s regular timetable ensures consistent student attendance and reinforces their value as an essential component of the learning experience. Bridge between industry and academia: Favor direct interaction with industry leaders, researchers, and policymakers aligns academic learning with real-world market needs, enhancing students’ readiness for professional challenges and supporting their career development. Include student’s participation at the Conference Cycle: Include student’s participation directly at the Conference help students to keep themselves highly motivated and disciplined throughout the course. Learn more here