Quality expectations for shorter learning experiences, digital credentials and specialist education.
Short courses and micro-credentials are evaluated in relation to their intended audience, learning outcomes, teaching and assessment approach, duration, accessibility, learner support and issuing body. Review findings do not convert a course into a national academic degree.
A learning offer should state its level and prerequisites, expected workload, assessment and retake rules, price and refund arrangements, issuing institution, exact credential title and whether any recognised credit or transfer arrangement is demonstrably applicable.
A reliable digital credential can include a unique reference, issue date, recipient, issuing entity, precise assessed skills, evidence of assessment, revocation status and a privacy-conscious verification route. Displaying a QR image alone does not prove academic equivalence or government recognition.
The review considers fit-for-purpose instructors, accurate content, accessible delivery, student identity and records handling, complaints, academic integrity and continuous feedback. Any external collaborators should have documented roles and responsibilities.
QUAA publishes decisions only where an assessment has taken place under an applicable scheme. A proposed, under-review or merely paid-for course does not receive an accreditation seal.
These pages describe a developing review methodology. QUAA is not currently accepting formal external reviews or issuing awards. Any future review would require adopted criteria, a documented scope and verified authority to conduct that specific service.
Before a case could be accepted, QUAA would identify the legal provider, awarding body where applicable, country, delivery sites, programmes and learner groups. An agreed scope would list the applicable criteria version, evidence sources, interviews or observations, exclusions and review limits. Evidence could include policies, dated records, sampled assessments, learner information and demonstrated practice.
Reviewers would need verified subject competence, relevant higher-education experience and declared conflicts. Appointments and decisions must be separated from commercial activity. A report would state evidence, strengths, concerns, limitations and recommendations; factual correction would not permit negotiation of findings. Publication would require a valid independent decision and explicit authorization.
No review service page proves that a review has occurred. An enquiry is not an application or decision. Any future complaint or appeal must follow an adopted, independent process. An absent public record is not a finding by another regulator or accreditor.