Home>Focus>Making Skills Portable: A Strategy for International Micro-credentials

Making Skills Portable: A Strategy for International Micro-credentials

As you look into microqualifications and micro-credentials, they have more formalized structures than courses do, more broadly speaking. The way we design micro-credentials in an international context must balance portability, learner-centeredness, transparency, relevance, assessment validity, and recognition.

Let’s start with Portability. Without it, training modules risk being trapped inside a single framework or local context, locking learners to their current context. Learners own their achievement, and can use it across different contexts.

For us, digitalization was key to achieving this. Moodle Workplace’s certification module is a strong tool here, as it allows keeping track of how small, flexible units can be bundled into larger, recognizable units of learning. Learners can collect the pieces they need, combine them in different ways, and adapt their achievements to new contexts. It also helps address the need for managing multiple versions of a course curriculum. As the world develops, so will our courses, so keeping track of what was taught and assessed in earlier versions of the qualification is essential.

For international learners, the flexibility provided by micro-qualifications should be helpful in fitting them into international pathways. This will require comparing the logic of multiple systems and bridging them with a more universal course logic. A course designed with this in mind feels less like a fixed framework and more like a set of translatable competences. It lets learners draw on what they already know and move toward their national or international career ambitions.

One of our most challenging aspects was transparency. The challenge is partly because it can be hard to capture and share the nuanced teaching practices of our everyday instruction. However, international recognition demands attention to detail, and detail can be hard to handle. At the same time, you want to cover all, but without giving conflicting advice in different contexts. Modules must document exactly what is taught, their recommendations, and why. 

Our work in comparing international contexts came down to discussing standard procedures for each country, to see if they aligned. We used detailed local education plans, and we opened guest access to our digital spaces where the mandatory and optional curriculum live. Discussion even went down to the individual presentation files from our instructors. Each of these elements aims to provide clarity, and together they form the evidence needed for comparison abroad. It also called for new structures of learning modules, where the universal logics were taught first, and then we moved on to teach how this works for each relevant country. We also started developing the ideas for bonus assessments, allowing students to verify that they have demonstrated sufficient competence in a standardized curriculum from another context.  

Developing internationally recognized modules costs both time and money. Consider that international course relevance helps us to focus our efforts. Translation, documentation, and negotiation are all resource-intensive, and learners cannot usually pay the full price. Program leaders must decide which modules deserve the investment. Some are worth it because they act as gateways or have broad relevance. Once established, they make entire pathways possible. Others may be better left within national boundaries or kept more informal modules.

“Working with the mandatory safety module for welders was highly relevant, as this is something all visitors need if they want to access the metal welding center. It’s not mandatory for plastic welding, but any other course module learners would like to do at ZBC, this safety course is needed for anyone to set foot in the welding center. We realised that this course was in Danish customized to Danish context, and we’re experiencing an increase in interest from students abroad. Also, our welding department has been increasingly participating in international development projects over the last few years, and we needed an internationalized course that can serve as the basis for the safety we expect in Denmark or abroad. This also helps us promote worthy and healthier career paths in the skilled trades.”

The welding module was difficult to align with other international pathways. No global system exists. Each sector works differently, and each education system recognizes learning in its own way. Recognition of prior learning is one of the few shared mechanics, that can be used in most contexts. Denmark uses individual competency assessments (called RKV), which allow learners to turn earlier experience into formal credit. In practice, this makes Micro-qualification courses stackable. Prior knowledge and new learning can be combined in ways that suit both the learner and the curriculum. Learners may also have their competencies recognized through examinations conducted by accredited examiners from other contexts.

Assessment adds yet another layer. In Denmark, our International learners can be tested with the same rigor as national students, but the results do not automatically translate into formal recognition. However, the more important question is what happens outside Denmark. Can local authorities accept them? Will our learners be able to act competently in other contexts? Do home institutions acknowledge and integrate them? Could such results matter for careers abroad? 

Assessment, in this sense, is both about measuring performance and something that must be shaped to support recognition across different systems. A very simple example is the phone number you call in case of an emergency. In Denmark, you call ‘112’, but what is the right number to call if you’re not in Denmark? This can confuse a situation where every second counts. We have also noticed different standard procedures in First Aid when responding to situations like cardiac arrest. The sequence of steps can vary, and this is important to find ways of navigating before you find yourself in a situation where you need it. Or at the time of assessment, where you must know the local practices for the specific context you’re in.

If you work with all of the above, some forms of international recognition become easier to achieve. Recognition remains one of the main goals. Or maybe we need to talk about ‘recognizability’ instead; instead of something being recognized by default, we want to work with making it easy for authorities in different contexts to challenge or recognize our modules. 

If we want to move beyond individual assessment towards a more structural or collective model, we have a few options. 

Certification authorities may compare modules to their own standards and adjust them before granting credit. Maybe recognition can be granted if schools add a small piece of supplementary information or training to their local micro-qualification modules. 

Governments sometimes choose to acknowledge completion letters or negotiate joint certificates. Colleges and universities, meanwhile, may create articulation agreements that outline how learning translates between schools. These documents give learners clarity: “An articulation agreement is an agreement between two schools that explains how earned credits will transfer from one school to the other.”

These design considerations help form the work needed for international micro-qualification courses. The process is demanding and context-specific. Some steps are straightforward, others slow and complex. But as you put in the work, your courses will gain a new reach. They begin to carry learners across borders and support international career mobility.

As we started this project, it became clear that we need to make a Microqualification strategy for the school, to help provide an underlying logic in the way to make everyday choices about microcredentials.

Activities for for international course recognition

When introducing micro-qualifications into a vocational college environment, it involves adding new workflows and examining supporting activities within the bigger picture. By doing so, you can identify which activities deserve the most resources and attention.

For us, ‘recognition work’ became one of those ‘bigger picture’ ideas connected to several distinct key activities. By focusing on these, we laid the groundwork for modules that offer international learning pathways. It also became clearer how close to ‘recognizability’ we are, as we can now discuss progress across the various activities for any given micro-qualification course.

We drew inspiration from the Business Model Canvas (BMC), adjusting it to reflect the reality of micro-qualification training. Certain components became essential, such as cost analysis, course formalization, and recognition processes. This helped us define concrete steps and key tasks.

Recognition work emerged as both a concept and a group of activities. As practitioners, we found it useful to divide this into eight main categories:

  1. Course delivery work
  2. Formalization work
  3. Selection work
  4. Translation work
  5. Transparency work
  6. Comparison work
  7. Integration work
  8. Certification work

These categories can be refined or supplemented by practitioners and academics. However, for now, they provided us with a shared language to manage the work ourselves, which became important when assigning roles and resources.

Tasks related to each activity

Course delivery is the most familiar part: scheduling, developing content, and promoting courses. From our project partners, we learned that this can give rise to several complex tasks:

Formalization marks the turning point from courses to micro-qualifications. Micro-qualifications introduce a level of formality that can increase the workload, but the activities also become more recognizable. However, little recognition can occur without a properly structured course.

“This is easier in some areas than in others. At ZBC, many of our faculty members teaching in the welding program are both skilled welders and vocational teachers. However, formal writing does not come naturally to many of these instructors. Questions about their teaching practices or course content can sometimes feel too abstract.

As a project manager, I have occasionally sent tasks to the department that end up stuck or forgotten due to the nature of what we’re asking. For us, this often means involving an academic profile who can spend time in the department with the instructors. The instructors handle these formalities well in their daily work, but it is often tied to practical and tacit knowledge. Spending time in the departments also helps coordinate efforts between the school and certification authorities, as well as with other external partners who have expectations regarding the formality of the course description.”

Selection looks at what micro-qualifications are relevant to further formalize for international contexts. This will be informed by a school micro-qualification strategy if you have formulated this. As costs and time are involved in taking these next steps, you need a system for finding the right courses to build into internationally recognizable micro-qualifications.


Translation then makes the course understandable to others. Language and meaning must be adjusted to international job or industry standards. Our welding safety course illustrated this well: Danish slides were translated step by step, with colleagues sparring over terminology. 

Transparency is a challenge you need to solve at your school and in your frame. Gathering your own materials, formal module descriptions, international/national frameworks references etc, will require a structured approach for sharing them outside your context. 

Comparison begins in your own (or your partner’s) context as the frame of reference, and note down any variations. This often means sitting down with government representatives, schools, learners with prior individual transfer recognition, etc.

Integration follows when feedback is applied to improve the course. Modules may be expanded with global examples or adjusted to meet multiple country requirements. 

Certification concerns the credential itself: co-branded documents, recognized logos, or detailed evidence learners can use elsewhere or agreements of full/partial recognition from authorities in other contexts.

Selection looks at which micro-qualifications are relevant to further formalize for international contexts. This should be informed by your school’s micro-qualification strategy, if one has been formulated. Because costs and time are involved in taking these next steps, you need a system for identifying the right courses to develop into internationally recognizable micro-qualifications.

Translation then makes the course understandable to others. Language and meaning must be adapted to international job or industry standards. Our welding safety course illustrated this well: Danish slides were translated step by step, with colleagues collaborating on terminology.

Transparency is a challenge that each school must solve within its own framework. Gathering materials such as formal module descriptions and references to national or international frameworks requires a structured approach to sharing them beyond your local context.

Comparison begins when you use your own or your partner’s context as the frame of reference and record any differences. This often involves meeting with government representatives, schools, or learners who have prior recognition of individual qualifications.

Integration follows when feedback is applied to improve the course. Modules may be expanded with global examples or adjusted to meet requirements in multiple countries.

Certification concerns the credential itself. Proofs of recognition in the form of co-branded documents, recognized logos, or detailed evidence that learners can use elsewhere, as well as agreements for full or partial recognition from authorities in other contexts.

Steffen Carlsson, Global workforce development at ZBC