There are five micro-credential models in common use among Australian higher education providers: the standalone non-accredited short course, the accredited undergraduate certificate, the stackable unit that carries credit into an AQF award, the industry co-badged credential, and the employer-commissioned program. Each has a different regulatory status under the Threshold Standards, and choosing the wrong model is the most common way providers get into difficulty.
This article sets out each model, what it can and cannot claim, and where TEQSA's interest begins, drawing on fifteen years of TEQSA registration and course accreditation work.
Why the choice of micro-credential model matters
The National Microcredentials Framework, released by the Department of Education in November 2021, defines a micro-credential as a certification of assessed learning or competency, with a minimum volume of learning of one hour and less than an AQF award qualification, that is additional, alternate, complementary to or a component part of an AQF award qualification. That definition covers a two-hour compliance module and a semester-long unit of a masters degree.
The regulatory consequences follow from what the credential claims. A registered provider may offer non-award courses without accreditation, but the moment a micro-credential is described as an AQF qualification, carries credit into one, or is marketed in a way that implies TEQSA recognition, the Threshold Standards apply in full. Standard 7.1 on representation is the one most often breached, because marketing teams like the word "accredited".
Model 1: the standalone non-accredited short course
This is the simplest of the micro-credential models: a registered provider designs a short course, assesses it, and issues a certificate of completion. It is not an AQF qualification, must not be described as one, and carries no automatic credit. TEQSA does not accredit it, but the provider remains bound by the Threshold Standards: the marketing must be accurate, and the academic board should have approved it under Standard 5.1 as a non-award offering.
In my experience the risk in this model is drift: a course that begins as professional development is later used as an admission pathway or given credit, and has become something else without anyone noticing. The academic board should record, at approval, what the credential is and is not.
Model 2: the accredited undergraduate certificate
The Undergraduate Certificate was introduced in 2020 as a pandemic measure and is now a permanent AQF qualification, with TEQSA confirming it will accredit Undergraduate Certificate courses beyond 30 June 2025. It is a half-year, accredited qualification that sits at AQF level 5, 6 or 7 depending on its learning outcomes, and it is the only micro-credential model that is itself an AQF award.
It goes through course accreditation, at fees TEQSA sets below those for a full award, and must satisfy the framework in the ordinary way. For a provider that wants a credential it can call accredited, this is the model, and I have written more on the permanence decision and what it means.
Model 3: the stackable unit with credit into an award
Here the micro-credential is a unit or cluster of units drawn from an accredited course and offered on its own, with completion counting as specified credit towards the award. The credential itself is not an AQF qualification, but the credit claim engages Standard 1.2 on credit and recognition of prior learning, and the unit must be assessed at the level and with the integrity the parent course requires.
The design questions are set out in micro-credentials, stackable learning and TEQSA: whether the stacked units together deliver the course learning outcomes, how long credit remains current, and whether a student who stacks their way to an award ever met admission requirements.
Model 4: the industry co-badged credential
A provider partners with a professional body, vendor or industry association and issues a credential carrying both names, and the regulatory question is who is responsible for the assessed learning. If the provider designs, delivers and assesses it, the partner's badge is endorsement. If the partner delivers any part, Standard 5.4 on delivery with other parties applies and the provider must govern and monitor the arrangement.
Assessors read co-badged credentials for representation: the certificate, the website and the partner's marketing must all say the same thing about what the credential is, and none may imply AQF status or TEQSA accreditation unless the credential has it. The partner's marketing is the part providers forget to check.
Model 5: the employer-commissioned program
An employer pays a provider to design and deliver a program for its staff, often assessed and credit-bearing towards one of the provider's awards. The standards apply as they do to any other cohort: admission, assessment integrity, student support and grievance arrangements must all reach the commissioned students, and the employer cannot influence academic judgment.
The model works when the provider treats the employer as a client for delivery and remains the sole authority on assessment, and fails when the contract gives the employer a say in pass marks or content the academic board never saw. The broader case for this kind of provision is in are micro-credentials the future of higher education.
Choosing between micro-credential models
The decision turns on three questions: whether the credential must be an AQF qualification, whether it must carry credit, and whether a third party will deliver any part of it. A yes to the first points to the undergraduate certificate; a yes to the second brings Standard 1.2 into play; a yes to the third brings Standard 5.4. A provider that answers those questions before it designs the course will usually choose the right model, and the academic board minute recording the choice is the evidence TEQSA will later read.
Download the Darlo Micro-credential Design Checklist
— a one-page test for the model, credit, representation and governance questions a micro-credential must answer, drawn from our TEQSA registration and accreditation work with private providers. Get the checklist
Want the full article?
Enter your email for free access to the rest of this guide and our TEQSA resource library.
Frequently asked questions
Does TEQSA accredit micro-credentials?
Only when the micro-credential is itself an AQF qualification, which in practice means the Undergraduate Certificate. Other models are non-award offerings of a registered provider and are governed by the Threshold Standards but not individually accredited.
Can a non-accredited short course carry credit into a degree?
Yes, if the provider's credit policy under Standard 1.2 provides for it and the academic board has approved the credit arrangement. The credential itself remains non-award and must not be described as accredited.
Is an industry co-badged credential the provider's responsibility?
Yes. If the partner delivers any part of it, Standard 5.4 requires the provider to govern and monitor the arrangement, and the provider is responsible for the accuracy of all representations about the credential, including the partner's marketing.
Which micro-credential model is fastest to launch?
The standalone non-accredited short course, because it needs academic board approval rather than TEQSA accreditation. The trade-off is that it cannot be called an accredited qualification and carries no automatic credit.
Dr Brendan Moloney is CEO of Darlo Higher Education, Australia's largest specialist TEQSA consultancy. He holds a PhD from the University of Melbourne, is a Cambridge University Press author on governance in higher education, and has advised private providers on registration and course accreditation for more than fifteen years.