Learner perceptions of the value of credentials – CRADLE Seminar Series
3 March 2020
It was standing room only, with many more online, for our first CRADLE seminar of 2020. We heard from Honorary CRADLE Fellow Emeritus Professor Beverley Oliver as she discussed the factors that influence learners’ perceptions of the value of credentials. Here, CRADLE Fellow Dr Kate Anderson reflects on Beverley’s seminar and shares her key takeaways.
When a presenter starts by posing a question nobody yet has an answer to, you know you’re in for an intriguing ride.
In this CRADLE seminar, Emeritus Professor Beverley Oliver shared a portrait of higher education’s increasingly challenging landscape – one where mature students are disengaging from credentialed learning. Naturally, this change represents a concerning threat to higher education institutions, given that reputable credentials are a core deliverable for the Australian education business model. Additionally, as Prof. Oliver emphasised, a well-functioning labour market relies on credentials that signal both the fit and competency of its workers. In spite of this, Australian employers report confusion and ambivalence in the face of current macro- and micro-credential trends, and the so-called “graduate premium” – the average wage difference between those who do versus those who don’t hold a university qualification – has continued to fall for Australia’s younger workers.
In response to these looming challenges for credentialed-learning providers, Prof. Oliver poses a critical question: what is the value of a tertiary education credential for today’s learners? This question holds particular significance at this time of year as universities vie for the hearts and minds of the nation’s prospective students. Even Triple J’s investigative news program Hack recently investigated a variant of the question on many school-leavers’ lips: Does a Uni degree help you get a job? (Their conclusion of course? “It depends…”.)
There may not be a definitive answer to the question of value, but during her seminar Prof. Oliver presented a comprehensive framework to aid the review of today’s credential offerings: macro or micro; undergraduate and postgraduate. Through this framework we can see a complex interplay of factors that can influence the value of a credential, from the cost and time it takes to attain, to the expected and delivered benefits, the provider’s reputation, and even the perceived integrity and reliability of the credentials themselves. Less obvious factors, such as the social membership and status imbued in graduates through their degree, also come into play. As an example of this, while attending a physics conference last week I surveyed my dinner companions about the value of their generic undergraduate physics degrees. Irrespective of their career trajectories, the graduates I spoke to viewed their credentials as a marker of the elite physics “brand” – advertising the possession of high-level intellectual reasoning capacity valued by industry stakeholders within and beyond the physics discipline. Likewise, Prof. Oliver’s research showcases the role of the credential as far more than a printed or digital stamp of completion; credentials anchor students to institutions, cohorts, communities and industries, and can unlock doorways to further study and work. Certainly the complex, and highly variable, relationship that learners have with their credentials remains an area ripe for exploration. Whether these values are adequately marketed or made use of is an additional question providers must continue to interrogate.
Examining the framework as a seminar group, participants reflected on the value they have placed on their own credentials over time. I for one have a complex relationship with my own qualifications. While I continue to deeply value the learnings and identity gained through my undergraduate degree – a Bachelor in Speech Pathology – the credential itself feels ill-fitting as clinical practice lapses. Meanwhile, after five years my hard-earned PhD title still sits awkwardly and often goes unclaimed, perhaps speaking to the imposter syndrome so many of us in academia experience. Pondering the value of credentials sparked similarly personal disclosures around the room concerning the value of learning. Participants reflected on the often competing goals of learning for knowledge gain versus learning for recognition. A generational shift was acknowledged between Australian students who had gained their university credentials for free, and those who were still paying theirs off. Does the price tag on a credential change the way we value or approach it? What about cases where a credential is compulsory but not well valued by the learner, such as compliance training in the workplace? Additionally, what do our credentials say about us on a personal level – do they capture the richness of triumphs, hardships, and efforts we have endured to attain them? And what role do credentials play in the “P’s make degrees” mentality some learners adopt?
As educators our primary business is learning, yet Prof. Oliver’s work clarifies the significance that the final product – a credential – can hold for our learners. It’s clear that the traditional notion of the tertiary credential is under threat, and is evolving rapidly in response. Research like Prof. Oliver’s will be imperative in ensuring the next generation of tertiary credentials continues to hold value for both learners and employers, across the complexity of markets we service. I for one will be intrigued to see what comes next.
Join @ProfBevOliver, @CRADLEdeakin and @SpeechPathKate on Twitter to share how you and your learners are #ValuingCredentials and where you see this headed in the future.
You can also read Emeritus Professor Beverly Oliver’s report on microcredentials at assuringgraduatecapabilities.com
