As higher education works to better connect learning with real-world value, microcredentials are emerging as a powerful tool for translating academic outcomes into recognizable skills. Their long-term impact depends not only on design but on faculty engagement, shared frameworks and institutional alignment. In this interview, Jennifer Potter discusses how faculty microcredential pilots are redefining credential value, clarifying the support needed to scale and revealing what it takes to move from pilots to a sustainable, systemwide ecosystem.
The EvoLLLution (Evo): How have faculty microcredential pilots reshaped your thinking about the future of credentialing?
Jennifer Potter (JP): This has been a long evolution for me. I spent many years as faculty and a department chair, and even then I was thinking about how to get faculty more invested in credentialing, particularly around NACE competencies. When I joined the system a little over a year ago, credentialing became a clear priority. My hypothesis was that if faculty experienced credentials themselves, they'd be more inclined to embed them into their curricula for students.
I don’t think I have a conclusion yet, but my thinking has shifted. I’m more convinced than ever of the value credentials offer students. At the same time, I've learned that faculty earning a credential isn’t enough on its own. Now I’m focused on how we better articulate why credentials matter in higher education and how we bring faculty along in that work.
Evo: What support do faculty need to design and scale effectively?
JP: Time is the biggest thing, which is always the answer no one wants to hear. Since COVID especially, it feels like there’s always one more thing being added to faculty plates, so I’m very sensitive to that. But I also think there's a perception that embedding credentials is much harder than it is. In many ways, it’s not that different from student learning outcomes. It’s really about translating academic work into skills, which is what we’re already asking students to do.
When faculty start thinking about their courses this way, it can simplify things rather than add work. You don’t have to teach things twice—just connect them more intentionally. For me, the key support is professional development and conversation. Getting faculty in the room is the hardest part. Once that happens, scaling becomes much easier.
Evo: How are you assessing the impact of these microcredential pilots on learner access and outcomes?
JP: We’re still very much in pilot mode, so we’re continuing to figure this out as we go. Right now, we’re running two pilots: one focused on digital accessibility, where faculty are redesigning courses with accessibility in mind, and another that’s a generative AI fellows program, where faculty are leading AI-focused development on their campuses. For both, we’re using portfolio-based assessment. Faculty submit their work, we review it, provide feedback and move forward from there.
What’s still evolving is how expansive this becomes—whether smaller credentials stack into larger ones and how we define quality and rigor. The bigger question we’re trying to answer isn’t just how to assess the badge, but what it means for faculty professionally. Do they want these credentials and, if so, why? That’s the piece we’re most interested in understanding.
Evo: What are some challenges and successes you’ve had in creating more portable, interoperable microcredentials?
JP: One of our biggest challenges is scale. We’re working across 12 campuses, and just getting everyone aligned is hard. Our system-level goal isn’t that every campus does credentialing the same way but that we share common frameworks and language, so we’re all describing things consistently. One of our biggest successes was getting all 12 campuses to participate in the pilot. That felt like a real win.
Another challenge has been pacing. Faculty are busy, they’re coming from different campuses, and they’re at very different starting points. Some already had deep expertise, while others were brand new but eager to learn. Designing an experience that meets everyone where they are—and gets them to a shared set of outcomes—is difficult. That challenge mirrors what we see with students, too. It’s not unlike the traditional classroom, but it becomes more complex when everyone needs to demonstrate a common set of skills at the end.
Evo: What are some other successes you’ve seen, and how did you get 12 campuses on board?
JP: Honestly, getting people on board is the secret to everything we do. We worked directly through provosts, since they’re our main connection to faculty, and there was strong interest in offering meaningful professional development. We also offered modest stipends—not enough to be the reason someone joined but enough to acknowledge their time. We followed up, too. Not everyone jumped in right away.
One real success has been how much faculty valued working with peers from other campuses and disciplines. Both pilots have been successful in that faculty learned a lot and found the experience meaningful. What I’m still trying to understand is how that success in learning translates to the value of the credential itself. Completing something tangible feels different than attending a webinar—and that distinction matters—but there’s still more work to do in helping faculty see the credential as evidence of that learning.
Evo: What are some key levers needed to move from a pilot to something that is a more scalable microcredential ecosystem?
JP: It really comes down to buy-in. That’s the biggest lever. At the system level, credentialing is central to our strategic plan—shared frameworks, systemwide pilots and a task force with representation from all campuses. Some campuses are far along while others have very limited resources, so coordination matters.
But buy-in isn’t just structural but cultural. Faculty and administrators need to see that credentials don’t threaten the liberal arts or disciplinary depth. I say that as someone who once believed theory alone was enough. What changed my perspective was students asking, “How does this help me?” If we can’t answer that, we’re missing something. Credentials help translate learning into value without replacing what matters. Getting faculty in the room, supporting their time and reframing what credentials mean—that’s how pilots become sustainable systems.
You Might Also Like
