Learning and Employment Records
From single badges to comprehensive, learner-held records.
Course ID: ICB-H05
Who it is for: HR and learning technology owners, quality, registry and admissions staff, education IT and credential operations teams, policy makers and public agencies, and members of the standards and wallet community.
Framework alignment: ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF), skill "Standards and interoperability" (VRITE pillar: Trustworthiness), level L3 "Enable", stage K "Knowledge". At this level a person selects standards and profiles for a programme, maps data models and resolves interoperability issues. This course covers the Knowledge stage: you learn to explain and recognise the concepts, rules, standards and reasons behind them.
Prerequisite: ICB-F01 Digital Badges and Credentials Essentials.
Workload: Self-paced, about 2 hours of notional learning. Live or workshop elements appear as facilitator notes.
Quality focus: VRITE Value and Experience. Throughout the course, ask what a record is worth to the learner and what it feels like to hold, share and use it.
Learning outcomes
- Explain what a learning and employment record is and how CLR 2.0 structures one.
- Compare approaches in the United States and Europe.
- Identify what a comprehensive record adds to single credentials.
How the outcomes are taught and assessed
| Outcome | Module | How it is assessed |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Explain what a learning and employment record is and how CLR 2.0 structures one. | The concept | Module quiz, final knowledge check |
| 1. Explain what a learning and employment record is and how CLR 2.0 structures one. | CLR 2.0 | Module quiz, final knowledge check |
| 2. Compare approaches in the United States and Europe. | Comparisons | Module quiz, final knowledge check |
| 3. Identify what a comprehensive record adds to single credentials. | Implications | Module quiz, final knowledge check |
Assessment: A knowledge check with 8 single-choice questions at the end of the course.
Badge: "Learning and Employment Records (Knowledge, L3)", alignment code ICSF-STND-L3-K. Evidence: passed knowledge check.
A note on scope: This course teaches understanding. Passing it shows that you can explain and recognise the concepts. It does not show that you can do a job or are competent in a role.
Topic status
| Topic | Status | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Learning and Employment Records (LER) | Emerging | More advanced in the United States than in Europe. |
| Open Badges 3.0 and CLR 2.0 | Established | Current specifications. Platform support is still uneven, so check the conformance certification of tools. |
Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.
Facilitator notes
If you run this course as a cohort, open with a 20-minute live session. Ask each participant to name one credential they hold that is hard to show to others (for example a short course certificate, a membership grade or an in-house training record). Keep the list visible. You will return to it in the last module. Agree how participants will submit the knowledge check result as badge evidence.The concept
What is a learning and employment record?
You already know from ICB-F01 that a digital badge or credential describes one achievement. It says who earned it, who issued it and what it stands for. A single credential is useful, but a person's learning and working life is made of many pieces.
A learning and employment record (LER) is a digital record that holds many pieces of a person's learning and work history together. It can include:
- courses and degrees,
- digital badges and micro-credentials,
- professional licences and memberships,
- work experience and job roles,
- skills, with evidence behind them,
- non-formal learning such as workshops and volunteering.
Two ideas matter most. First, the record is comprehensive: it covers more than one achievement and more than one issuer. Second, the record is learner-held: the person keeps it, for example in a digital wallet, and decides what to share, with whom and when.
A learning and employment record gathers many credentials into one record that the learner holds.
Why records, and why now?
People change jobs, move between countries and learn in many places. Each issuer holds its own data in its own system. A learner who wants to show their full story has to collect documents from many sources and send them one by one.
A record changes the experience. The learner sees their whole history in one place. An employer, a university or an agency can receive a selected view of it, with proof that each part comes from its issuer. For the learner, this is about value (the record helps them reach opportunities) and experience (sharing is simple and under their control).
A record also supports skills-based practices. When achievements are described with skills and evidence, an employer or admissions officer can look at what a person has done, not only at the title of a course.
Records and single credentials
A record does not replace single credentials. Each credential keeps its own issuer, its own evidence and its own verification. The record is the container and the structure around them. Think of a folder that holds verified documents, with an index that explains how they relate.
Worked example: A college and a professional body
University, college or training provider. A regional college runs a two-year health care assistant programme. Today a graduate receives a PDF certificate, a transcript and three short course badges. In a record-based approach, the college issues all of these as verifiable credentials, and the graduate stores them in a wallet. The graduate also adds a placement completion statement from a hospital.
Professional body, sector association or public agency. A national association for care workers issues a membership credential and a continuing development log. The graduate adds both to the same wallet. When applying for a job, the graduate sends the employer one selected view: the college award, the placement statement and the membership. The employer can check each part with its issuer. All numbers and details here are illustrative.
Practice activity: Map your own record
List five achievements from your own education and work. For each one, write down who issued it, in what form you hold it (paper, PDF, email, badge) and how hard it would be to share with a new employer today. Then mark which ones could sit in one learner-held record. Keep the list for the last module.
Facilitator notes
Pair participants for the practice activity. Ask each pair to swap lists and name the single biggest obstacle to sharing the five items. Collect the obstacles on a shared board and group them: missing digital form, no verification, issuer closed or unreachable, privacy concerns.Check your understanding: The concept
A learning and employment record is comprehensive and learner-held. It brings together credentials from several issuers, plus experience and skills. A single badge, an employer database or a paper certificate does not have both qualities.
Learner-held means the person controls storage and sharing. The learner does not change what an issuer has issued, and the issuer does not control who sees the record.
A record contains credentials. Each one stays verifiable with its own issuer and evidence.
A record is broad by design. It can hold formal and non-formal learning and work history from many sources.
CLR 2.0
The standard in one picture
CLR 2.0 is the Comprehensive Learner Record standard, version 2.0. It is a current, established specification, published by 1EdTech and designed to work together with Open Badges 3.0. Both specifications build on the W3C Verifiable Credentials data model.
You do not need to read the technical text to understand the idea. A CLR is a verifiable credential that contains other credentials and descriptions of learning and work. It is a structured wrapper. Inside it, the learner's achievements are described in a shared data model so that other systems can read them.
A CLR 2.0 record is a credential that holds a set of achievements, each with its own details, and a description of the learner.
Main building blocks
Without going into technical detail, you should recognise these ideas.
- The CLR credential. The outer credential. It is issued to the learner and holds the contents.
- Learner and issuer. Every credential names who it is about and who issued it. This lets a receiver check where it comes from.
- Achievements. Descriptions of what was achieved: a course, a degree, a badge, a role. Each has a name, a description and often criteria.
- Results and evidence. An achievement can carry results, such as a grade or outcome, and evidence, such as a link to work or an assessment record.
- Skills and alignments. An achievement can point to skills or frameworks, so that systems can compare it with job requirements or other records.
- Associations. Links that show how items relate, for example that a course is part of a degree, or that a badge is a component of a programme.
- Proof. A digital signature or similar mechanism allows a receiver to check that the content has not been changed and who issued it.
Relationship to Open Badges 3.0
Open Badges 3.0 describes a single achievement credential. CLR 2.0 describes a set of achievements and their relationships. The two share a data model for achievements. This means an Open Badges 3.0 credential can be included in a CLR, and tools that understand one can often work with the other.
A practical point for anyone selecting tools: both specifications are established, but support in platforms is still uneven. Some tools issue but cannot display. Some tools display but do not verify. Before you choose a tool, check whether it holds a conformance certification for the version of the standard you need. Do not rely on a product description alone.
Worked example: A university and a public agency
University, college or training provider. A university registry wants to give graduates a record at the end of their studies. It decides to issue a CLR 2.0 credential that contains the degree award, each module as an achievement with its result, and two Open Badges 3.0 credentials for extra-curricular skills. A registry officer checks that the issuing platform holds conformance certification for CLR 2.0 and that a test record opens correctly in two different wallets.
Professional body, sector association or public agency. A public agency for vocational training issues attendance and assessment achievements for adult learners. It uses the same data model, so a learner can add the agency achievements to the same wallet that holds university credentials. Associations in the data model link each module to the qualification it counts towards. All details are illustrative.
Practice activity: Read a record structure
Imagine a record with one qualification, three modules and one badge. Sketch it on paper as boxes. Mark the outer credential, the learner, the issuer, the achievements and the associations. Then write one sentence for each box saying what a receiving system could do with that information.
Facilitator notes
If participants include data specialists, offer an optional 30-minute workshop in which they inspect a sample CLR 2.0 file from the specification's public examples. Keep the self-paced path free of code. Remind everyone that this course does not require writing or editing data models.Check your understanding: CLR 2.0
A CLR 2.0 record is a structured credential that holds several achievements. It includes who the learner is, who issued it and how items relate.
Associations express relationships between achievements. They help receivers understand how parts fit together.
The two specifications are designed to work together. Open Badges 3.0 describes single credentials and CLR 2.0 groups achievements into a record.
Support varies between platforms. Conformance certification gives evidence about tested behaviour. It does not promise outcomes for learners, and a sample test is still sensible.
Comparisons
Two regions, different starting points
Learning and employment records are an emerging topic. They are more advanced in the United States than in Europe. This section compares the two regions at the level of approach. It does not rank them and it does not describe every programme.
Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.
The United States approach has grown from employer and education partnerships, while the European approach builds on public frameworks and shared infrastructure.
The United States
In the United States, the idea of an LER has been driven by a mix of education institutions, employers, standards bodies and public programmes. Interest comes from the wish to describe skills gained in many places and to connect learning to hiring and advancement. Many projects take the form of pilots and networks of partners who agree to exchange records.
Common features you will meet in descriptions of this approach:
- a strong link between records and skills-based hiring,
- use of CLR 2.0 and Open Badges 3.0 as data standards,
- partnerships between employers, colleges and technology providers,
- attention to how records can support career pathways.
Europe
In Europe, the starting point is different. There are established public frameworks for qualifications and a policy interest in recognition across borders. Work on digital credentials is often connected to public infrastructure, shared rules and the aim of making qualifications easy to recognise and verify between countries and sectors.
Common features you will meet in descriptions of this approach:
- links between credentials and national or European qualification frameworks,
- emphasis on recognition, mobility and trust in public systems,
- shared specifications and infrastructure that many institutions can use,
- attention to privacy and learner control under European rules.
The European picture is varied. Countries and institutions differ in how far they have moved from pilots to everyday use, and LERs as a full concept are less advanced than in the United States.
What the regions share
Despite different routes, the two regions share important ideas. Both aim for records that are verifiable and learner-held. Both depend on common data models so that systems can read each other's records. Both face the same practical questions: how to describe skills consistently, how to protect personal data and how to make wallets and platforms work together.
For a person who selects standards for a programme, this means the regional context matters but the technical core is similar. A tool that conforms to CLR 2.0 and Open Badges 3.0 can serve either context. What changes is the surrounding framework: which qualification frameworks you link to, which laws apply and which partners you work with.
Worked example: A training provider and a public agency in different regions
University, college or training provider. A private training provider works with learners in both the United States and a European country. It issues the same CLR 2.0 structure for both. For US employers it adds skills alignments to job-related frameworks. For the European learners it also adds a link to the relevant national qualification level where one applies. The data model is the same, and the alignments differ by audience.
Professional body, sector association or public agency. A public agency in a European country plans to accept credentials from foreign providers. Its staff compare how the provider's record describes level, learning outcomes and assessment with the agency's own framework. They decide that the record gives enough information for a first review, and they keep a manual check for unclear cases. All details are illustrative.
Practice activity: Comparison grid
Draw a table with two columns, United States and Europe. In rows, write: main drivers, main users, main link to public policy and main challenge. Fill it in using only what you have read here. Mark any cell where you would need to check an official source before using it in a report.
Facilitator notes
In a live session, split participants into two groups, one arguing the case for the US approach and one for the European approach. After ten minutes, ask each group to name two things they borrowed from the other. Remind participants that the aim is understanding and not a ranking.Check your understanding: Comparisons
The course notes describe LERs as emerging, with the United States ahead of Europe.
The US approach is strongly linked to partnerships and skills. The European approach is strongly linked to public frameworks, recognition and mobility.
The shared ideas are verifiability, learner control and common data models. Laws and programmes differ.
The core model can stay stable while alignments, frameworks and legal context vary by region.
Implications
What a comprehensive record adds
A single credential answers one question: did this person achieve this, according to this issuer? A comprehensive record can answer wider questions. This is the core of the third learning outcome.
A comprehensive record adds context, connection, completeness and control to what single credentials already offer.
Completeness. A record brings together achievements from many issuers and settings. The receiver sees the whole picture instead of a single piece. This includes learning that sits outside formal education.
Context. Items in a record can show how they relate: a module belongs to a qualification, a badge belongs to a programme, a role used a skill. Associations and alignments give meaning that a lone credential cannot give.
Connection. Because records use shared data models, systems can read them. An admissions system, a recruitment tool and a skills platform can all use the same record. This reduces retyping and reduces errors.
Control. The learner holds the record and chooses what to share. A learner can send a selected view for one purpose and keep the rest private. This links back to the quality focus on Value (the record helps the learner reach opportunities) and Experience (sharing is simple and respects the learner's choices).
What a record does not add
It is useful to be clear about limits.
- A record does not make a weak credential strong. Each item is only as trustworthy as its issuer and its assessment.
- A record does not prove that a person can do a job. It shows what an issuer has stated about learning or experience. Employers still judge fit for a role.
- A record does not remove the need for good data. If skills are described inconsistently, systems will struggle to compare them.
- A record does not solve interoperability by itself. Platform support is uneven, so testing and conformance checks remain necessary.
Questions to ask as a decision maker
If you are selecting standards and profiles for a programme, keep a short list of questions in mind.
- What problem would a record solve for our learners or members?
- Which of our credentials would go in it, and who issues them?
- Which standards and versions do our partners and tools support?
- Do our tools hold conformance certification for those versions?
- How will learners store, view and share their record?
- What data protection rules apply to the content?
- How will we explain the record to employers, admissions staff and learners?
These questions connect the knowledge in this course to the skill described at level L3: selecting standards and profiles, mapping data models and resolving interoperability issues. In this course you build the understanding behind those decisions. Practising the decisions themselves belongs to a later stage.
Worked example: A college and a sector association
University, college or training provider. A college registry lists the credentials it issues: diplomas, short course certificates, digital badges and work placement confirmations. Registry staff group them by learner journey and decide which belong in a record. They find that placement confirmations come from employers and are not yet digital. They note this as a gap and agree to ask two partner employers to issue them in a compatible form.
Professional body, sector association or public agency. A sector association issues membership grades and a yearly continuing development statement. It considers adding both to learners' records. Staff ask what a member gains: easier proof for employers, one place for all statements and control over sharing. They also note a risk: members may be confused if wallets display the items differently. The association plans a short guide for members. All details are illustrative.
Practice activity: Return to your list
Take the list you made in the first module. For each item, write one sentence on what it would add if it sat in a record with the others: completeness, context, connection or control. Then write one thing the record would not fix.
Facilitator notes
Close a live session by asking each participant to name one question from the decision-maker list that their organisation cannot yet answer. Record the answers. They make a useful starting point for a follow-up workshop on selecting standards and profiles.Check your understanding: Implications
A record gathers achievements, shows how they relate, lets systems read them and gives the learner control over sharing. It does not guarantee jobs or replace assessment.
A record shows what issuers state about learning and experience. It does not prove competence in a job.
Choosing standards, versions and tools that work together is central to interoperability. Hiding data from learners and skipping tests work against trust.
Value and Experience focus on the learner's benefit and the quality of the experience of holding and sharing a record.
Assessment and badge
Knowledge check
The final knowledge check has 8 questions. Each has four options and exactly one correct answer. You can read the explanation after each question. The questions cover all three learning outcomes.
Your certificate of completion
You passed the final check with %. Type your name as it should appear on the certificate. Your name stays on this device.
Certificate ID . Keep this ID: you need it to upgrade your certificate.
Need proof that others can check? ICoBC can upgrade your certificate to a signed Open Badges 3.0 credential after an identity check and a competence check, for €110 plus VAT.
Upgrade to a verifiable credentialBringing credentials to your organisation? ICoBC offers vendor-neutral consultancy.
Rubric
| Criterion | Evidence | Meets the standard |
|---|---|---|
| Explains the concept | Correct answers on questions 1 to 4 | At least 3 of 4 correct |
| Compares regional approaches | Correct answers on questions 5 to 7 | At least 2 of 3 correct |
| Identifies what a record adds | Correct answer on question 8 | Correct |
Pass rule
You pass when you answer at least 6 of the 8 questions correctly and meet the standard in all three criteria above. You may retake the knowledge check. After a retake, re-read the module that matches any outcome you missed.
Evidence for the badge
Submit the result of the passed knowledge check as evidence for the badge "Learning and Employment Records (Knowledge, L3)", alignment code ICSF-STND-L3-K. The badge shows that you passed a check of your understanding of the concepts in this course. It does not show competence in a job.
Facilitator notes
For a cohort, review the knowledge check results together. Look at which questions most participants missed and discuss the matching module content for ten minutes. Offer an optional follow-up workshop on selecting standards and profiles for a real programme, which belongs to a later stage of the ICSF.Sources and further reading
Status as of November 2026; check before publishing.
The sources below are official texts, standards bodies and framework owners. Check the current version and address of each document on the owner's website before you rely on it.
- 1EdTech Consortium: specification pages for Open Badges 3.0 and Comprehensive Learner Record (CLR) 2.0, including conformance and certification information.
- World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): Verifiable Credentials Data Model, the underlying model used by Open Badges 3.0 and CLR 2.0.
- ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF): the framework that defines the skill "Standards and interoperability" and its levels and stages.
- ICB-F01 Digital Badges and Credentials Essentials: the prerequisite course in the ICoBC Kursbibliothek.