# European Learning Model and European Digital Credentials The European way to describe and issue learning achievements. ## About this course This course is part of the ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF). It trains the skill "Standards and interoperability" (VRITE pillar: Trustworthiness) at level L3 "Enable", stage A "Ability". At this level you select standards and profiles for a programme, map data models and resolve interoperability issues. At the Ability stage you practise this on realistic tasks in a controlled setting. **Who it is for** - Programme and micro-credential leads - Quality, registry and admissions staff - Education IT and credential operations staff - Policy makers and public agencies **Prerequisite:** ICB-P07 Open Badges 3.0 and Verifiable Credentials: Hands-on Lab. **Learning outcomes.** After this course you can: 1. Describe the European Learning Model and how it structures learning achievements. 2. Issue a sample European Digital Credential for Learning with the Commission's tools. 3. Map an Open Badges credential to the ELM and identify gaps. 4. Explain the role of the ELM in wallet-based education credentials. **Workload.** This is a blended cohort course with 6 hours of notional learning. This file covers the self-paced part. Live or workshop elements are described in facilitator notes. **Assessment.** You issue a sample European Digital Credential and submit an Open Badges 3.0 to ELM mapping table. A person assesses both with the rubric in the section "Assessment and badge". A short knowledge check supports the task. **Badge.** "European Learning Model and European Digital Credentials (Ability, L3)", alignment code ICSF-STND-L3-A. Evidence: sample credential and mapping table. | Outcome | Module | How it is assessed | |---|---|---| | 1. Describe the ELM and how it structures learning achievements | The ELM in brief | Knowledge check questions 1 to 3; criterion 1 of the rubric | | 2. Issue a sample European Digital Credential for Learning with the Commission's tools | The EDC tools | Sample credential (assessed task); knowledge check questions 4 and 5 | | 3. Map an Open Badges credential to the ELM and identify gaps | Mapping between models | Mapping table (assessed task); knowledge check questions 6 and 7 | | 4. Explain the role of the ELM in wallet-based education credentials | Toward wallet-based education credentials | Knowledge check questions 8 to 10; criterion 4 of the rubric | > Time-sensitive facts in this course are marked "Status as of November 2026; check before publishing." Always check the current official sources before you rely on them in a real programme. ## The ELM in brief ### What the ELM is The European Learning Model (ELM) is a data model that describes learning achievements in a structured way. It was developed in the European context to make learning opportunities, assessments and qualifications easy to describe and to exchange across borders and systems. The European Digital Credentials for Learning (EDC) are digital credentials that use the ELM as their data model. Status: the ELM and EDC are established and in use by institutions across Europe. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. The ELM gives you a shared vocabulary. A university in one country and a training provider in another can describe a course, an assessment and a result with the same building blocks. A receiving organisation can then read the data without knowing the sender's internal systems. Three ideas run through the model: - **Structure.** Information is split into clear classes with defined properties, for example the person, the achievement and the issuer. - **Reuse.** The same description of a learning opportunity or an assessment can be used in many credentials. - **Linkage.** Credentials link to the organisations and the specifications that stand behind them, which supports trust. Trustworthiness depends on this structure. A reader can see who issued a credential, what was achieved and how it was assessed. Value depends on it too: clear, comparable descriptions help admissions staff, employers and other providers make decisions. --{{1}}-- The ELM is a data model. It does not decide what is worth learning. It decides how you describe it. ### Core classes The ELM describes a learning achievement through a small set of linked classes. This course uses the following simplified view. The names below are teaching labels; check the current ELM documentation for the exact class and property names. - **Person:** the earner, or learner. - **Learning achievement:** what the person achieved, such as a module, a course or a qualification. - **Learning specification:** the formal description of what the achievement stands for, including title, description, learning outcomes and, where relevant, level and credit. - **Learning assessment:** how the achievement was assessed and with what result. - **Learning activity:** the learning that took place, for example a course or a workplace training. - **Organisation:** the body that awards, assesses or delivers. Core ELM classes A simplified diagram of the core classes of the European Learning Model. The learning achievement, shown in navy at the centre, links to the person, the learning specification, the learning assessment, the learning activity and the awarding organisation. Learning achievement what was achieved Person the earner Learning specification outcomes, level, credit Learning assessment how and with what result Learning activity the learning that took place Awarding organisation issues and stands behind it Simplified teaching view. Check the official ELM documentation for exact names. ### Reading a learning achievement A credential built on the ELM answers six practical questions: 1. Who is the earner? 2. What was achieved, in words a reader can understand? 3. What are the intended learning outcomes? 4. How was the achievement assessed, and what was the result? 5. What learning took place, and where? 6. Who awarded it, and can I check that? When you design a programme, collect the answers to these questions before you open any tool. Missing answers are the most common cause of weak credentials. A title without learning outcomes tells the reader little. A result without an assessment description is hard to trust. Not every field is required for every credential. A short workshop certificate needs less detail than a full qualification. The ELM lets you describe as much as you need. A good rule is to include what a reader needs to decide whether the credential suits their purpose. **Worked example: Describing a data analysis module (training provider)** Role: Amira, a micro-credential lead at a regional training provider (illustrative). Amira plans a 5-credit module "Data analysis for administrators". She fills in the six questions: | Question | Amira's answer | |---|---| | Earner | The learner, identified by name and a stable identifier | | What was achieved | Completion of the module "Data analysis for administrators" | | Learning outcomes | Clean a dataset; build three standard charts; explain limits of a result | | Assessment and result | Practical project, marked pass or fail against a published rubric | | Learning activity | Six weekly sessions, blended delivery, 125 hours of study (illustrative) | | Awarding body | The training provider, with its registered organisation details | She sees that the learning outcomes and the assessment are the most valuable parts for a reader, so she writes them with care. **Worked example: Describing a continuing education course (professional body)** Role: Jonas, a certification officer at a professional association for engineers (illustrative). Jonas manages an annual update course on safety regulations. Members need proof of attendance and a passed test. He describes the achievement with the learning outcomes taken from the regulation update, a short online test as the assessment, and the association as the awarding body. He notes that the credential should state the date, because the content is time-sensitive. **Practice activity: Describe your own achievement** Choose one real or realistic learning achievement from your own context, for example a course, a training or a micro-credential. 1. Write the answers to the six questions above, in one or two sentences each. 2. Mark each answer with one of: "complete", "partly known", "missing". 3. For every answer marked "partly known" or "missing", write who in your organisation could supply it. 4. Keep your notes. You will reuse them in the next modules.
Facilitator notes **Live element (30 minutes).** Pair participants from different roles, for example a programme lead with a registry officer. Each pair reviews one participant's six answers and challenges anything vague. Collect the most common gaps on a shared board and discuss who owns the data in a typical organisation. **Watch for:** titles used as descriptions, learning outcomes copied from marketing text, and missing assessment details. Remind participants that the ELM describes facts, not promotional language.
### Quiz: The ELM in brief **Question 1.** What is the European Learning Model? [( )] A mandatory national curriculum for all European universities [(X)] A data model for describing learning achievements in a structured and exchangeable way [( )] A software application for issuing credentials [( )] A ranking system for education providers [[?]] Think about what a model does: it structures information, not teaching content. **** The ELM is a data model. It gives a shared structure and vocabulary for describing learning achievements, so that different systems can exchange them. It is not a curriculum, an application or a ranking. **** **Question 2.** Which element of the ELM tells a reader what a credential stands for, including its learning outcomes? [( )] The awarding organisation [( )] The person [(X)] The learning specification [( )] The date of issue [[?]] Look for the class that carries outcomes, level and credit. **** The learning specification describes what the achievement stands for, including title, description, outcomes and, where relevant, level and credit. The other elements are important, but they do not carry the outcomes. **** **Question 3.** A programme lead has a clear course title but no information on how learners were assessed. What is the best next step? [( )] Issue the credential anyway, because the title is enough [( )] Remove the assessment field from the credential design [(X)] Obtain and record the assessment method and result information before issuing [( )] Add a longer marketing description to the title [[?]] Which question from the six practical questions is unanswered? **** A reader needs to know how the achievement was assessed to trust and compare it. Collect the assessment information first. A longer marketing text does not replace it. **** ## The EDC tools ### Where the tools fit The European Commission offers free tools for the European Digital Credentials for Learning. They let an organisation create, sign and send credentials that follow the ELM, and let a learner receive and hold them. In this course you use the Commission's tools to issue a sample credential in a test setting. The tools are public services. Their names, features and access rules can change. This course therefore describes the tasks you perform and not the exact screens. Always follow the current official guidance and user documentation. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. At a high level, the issuing process has these steps: 1. **Prepare the data.** Gather the answers to the six questions from module 1. 2. **Create the credential.** Enter the data in the issuing tool or prepare it for upload, using the ELM structure. 3. **Seal it.** The credential is protected so that a reader can later detect changes and check the issuer. The method depends on the tool's current configuration. 4. **Deliver it.** The credential reaches the learner, for example by email link or download. 5. **Check it.** A reader or a verification function confirms the issuer and that the data is unchanged. Sealing and verification are the Trustworthiness part of the process. Without them, the credential is only a document. ### Practising in a safe setting Always practise with fictional learners and test data. Do not use real personal data of learners, colleagues or yourself in a sample credential unless your organisation has agreed it and the tool is configured for test use. Good practice for a sample issuance: - Use a clearly fictional learner name and an email address that you control. - Label the credential title as a sample, for example "SAMPLE: Data analysis for administrators". - Keep a record of each step with screenshots or notes. You need this as evidence. - Do not issue to real learners from a test setup. - Write down every problem you meet and how you solved it. Interoperability work is mostly problem solving. Typical problems at this stage include missing mandatory fields, text that is too long for a field, inconsistent dates, and an issuer identity that is not set up. Resolve them step by step, and record the cause of each. Steps to issue a sample European Digital Credential A five-step flow from left to right: prepare the data, create the credential, seal it, deliver it to the learner and check it. Steps one to three are performed by the issuing organisation in cyan, step four reaches the learner in navy, and step five is a check by a reader. 1. Prepare the data 2. Create the credential 3. Seal protect and sign 4. Deliver to the learner 5. Check issuer and data Issuing organisation Practise with fictional data in a test setting. **Worked example: Issuing a sample module credential (university)** Role: Priya, a registry officer at a university (illustrative). Priya needs to show the faculty what an EDC for a short elective looks like. She prepares a fictional learner called "Test Learner", an email address she controls and a sample module "SAMPLE: Introduction to research methods". She enters the learning outcomes from the module handbook, selects a pass result and sets the university as the issuer. The tool reports that the issuer details are incomplete. She adds the missing organisation information and repeats the step. She seals the credential, sends it to her own test address and opens it as the learner. She then checks the credential and notes in her log that it shows the issuer and the unchanged data. **Worked example: Issuing a sample attendance credential (public agency)** Role: Tomasz, a training coordinator at a regional public agency (illustrative). Tomasz wants to test credentials for a two-day course for civil servants. He creates a sample with a fictional participant, describes two learning outcomes, and records "attended" as the result without a graded assessment. He notices that the tool expects an assessment description. He records "participation, no graded assessment" so that readers understand what the credential does and does not show. He writes this decision in his log for his team. **Practice activity: Issue your sample credential** This is the first part of the assessed task. 1. Choose the achievement you described in module 1, or a fictional one. 2. Use the Commission's EDC tools in the setting provided by your facilitator or described in the current official guidance. 3. Issue a sample credential to a fictional learner or to an address you control. Mark the title as a sample. 4. Open the credential as the learner and run a check as a reader. 5. Collect evidence: screenshots or an export of the credential, plus a short log with each step, each problem and each solution. 6. Keep the credential data. You need it for the mapping in module 3.
Facilitator notes **Live element (60 to 90 minutes, workshop).** Prepare the tool access before the session, including test accounts or a sandbox, and check that every participant can sign in. Walk through one issuance together on a shared screen, then let participants work alone or in pairs. **Common problems:** access rights not yet granted, incomplete issuer details, participants entering real personal data. Remind participants to use fictional data. **Debrief:** ask each participant to name the one field that was hardest to fill and why. This links to the mapping task. **Checks before the session:** confirm that the tool names, screens and access steps in your handout match the current official guidance.
### Quiz: The EDC tools **Question 4.** Why should you use fictional learners and clearly marked sample titles when practising? [( )] Because the tools do not accept real names [(X)] To avoid mixing test credentials with real ones and to protect personal data [( )] Because sample credentials are valid for a lifetime [( )] Because marked titles are required by law for all credentials [[?]] Think about the risk of a test credential that looks real. **** Test credentials can be mistaken for real ones, and real personal data should not be used without agreement. Fictional data and a "SAMPLE" label keep the test safe and clear. **** **Question 5.** The issuing tool reports that a required field is missing. What is the best response? [( )] Skip the credential and start a new project [( )] Enter a random value to pass the check [(X)] Find the missing information, enter it correctly and record the cause in your log [( )] Delete the issuer details [[?]] Interoperability work needs correct data and a record of decisions. **** Random values reduce the value of a credential and its trustworthiness. Find the correct information, enter it and note the cause. This record helps you improve your data preparation. **** ## Mapping between models ### Why map Many organisations already issue Open Badges 3.0 credentials. Open Badges 3.0 is built on the Verifiable Credentials data model and describes achievements for a wide range of uses. The ELM was designed for education credentials in the European context. A mapping table shows how the information in one model corresponds to the other, and where it does not. You need mapping when you: - reuse existing badge data to create ELM-based credentials, - explain to a receiving organisation how your badges relate to European credentials, - select a standard or profile for a programme and need to know what you gain and lose. Mapping is a skill of precision. It needs a clear method and honest recording of gaps. The aim is not to force every field into a match, but to decide for each field whether it maps fully, partly or not at all. ### A method for mapping Use these steps. They work for any pair of data models. 1. **Collect sample data.** Take one real or realistic Open Badges 3.0 credential and your sample ELM-based credential from module 2. 2. **List the source fields.** Write down every field of the Open Badges credential that carries meaning, such as name, description, criteria, issuer, issue date, image, evidence, result and achievement type. 3. **Find a target.** For each source field, look for the ELM element that carries the same meaning. Use the official specifications of both models. 4. **Judge the match.** Mark the match as *direct* (same meaning), *partial* (similar but narrower or broader), or *none* (no equivalent). 5. **Note the gap.** For every partial or missing match, write what information would be lost or what must be added, and how to resolve it. 6. **Check against the data.** Test your table with the real sample data. Tables that look right in theory sometimes fail on real values. Gaps are not failures. They are findings. A gap tells a programme lead what extra data to collect, or tells a policy maker where the models differ. Common gap types are: - **Missing in target:** the ELM element has no place for the field, so the information would be lost or must go into a free-text description. - **Missing in source:** the ELM expects information that the badge never captured, such as a structured assessment description. - **Different meaning:** the field names look alike but the meaning differs. - **Different format:** the content matches but the format differs, for example dates or identifiers. Mapping an Open Badges credential to the ELM Three example field pairs between an Open Badges 3.0 credential on the left and the European Learning Model on the right. Achievement name maps directly to the learning specification title, criteria maps partly to learning outcomes, and evidence has no direct equivalent and is marked as a gap. Open Badges 3.0 European Learning Model Achievement name Specification title direct Criteria Learning outcomes partial Evidence Gap: decide where to record it none Illustrative pairs. Use the official specifications for the real table. ### Recording the table A good mapping table is short, specific and testable. Use these columns: | Source field (Open Badges 3.0) | Target element (ELM) | Match | Gap or note | Action | |---|---|---|---|---| Rules for a strong table: - **One row per field** that carries meaning. - **Name both sides** exactly as in the specifications. - **Use only three match values:** direct, partial, none. - **Explain each gap** in one sentence: what is lost, added or changed. - **Propose an action:** collect the data, write it into a description, accept the loss, or ask the issuer. - **Test with real data** and note any value that fails. Do not hide a gap by inventing a match. A table that shows an honest gap supports trust. A table that claims a perfect match without testing does not. **Worked example: Mapping a skills badge (training provider)** Role: Lena, a credential operations specialist at a vocational training provider (illustrative). Lena holds an Open Badges 3.0 credential for "Spreadsheet skills, level 2". She builds this table: | Source field | Target element | Match | Gap or note | Action | |---|---|---|---|---| | Achievement name | Specification title | Direct | None | Copy | | Description | Specification description | Direct | None | Copy | | Criteria | Learning outcomes | Partial | Criteria are one text block; outcomes are better as separate items | Split into three outcome statements | | Issuer | Awarding organisation | Direct | Issuer identifier format differs | Convert identifier, test | | Evidence link | No equivalent | None | Evidence cannot be recorded in a structured way | Mention in description, or keep the badge alongside | | Result | Assessment result | Partial | Badge records "achieved"; ELM allows a structured assessment | Add assessment description | She tests the table on her sample credential and finds that the criteria text needed rewriting before it split cleanly into outcomes. **Worked example: Mapping a membership credential (professional body)** Role: Sofia, a quality manager at a professional association for accountants (illustrative). Sofia maps a badge that shows "Chartered member". She finds that the title and issuer map directly. The "membership level" field has only a partial match, because the ELM describes learning achievements and not membership status. She records this as a difference in meaning and decides that the ELM-based credential should cover the continuing education course, while the membership badge remains a separate credential. Her table shows the gap and the decision. **Practice activity: Build your mapping table** This is the second part of the assessed task. 1. Choose one Open Badges 3.0 credential. Use your own, one supplied by your facilitator, or a realistic fictional one. 2. List at least eight fields from the badge that carry meaning. 3. Complete the table with the five columns shown above, using the official specifications for both models. 4. Identify at least three gaps, and for each give a concrete action. 5. Test the table with your sample credential from module 2 and note one value that needed correction. 6. Save the table as a document (Markdown, spreadsheet or PDF) for submission.
Facilitator notes **Live element (45 minutes).** Display one badge on screen and build the first six rows of the table with the group. Then let pairs complete the rest. Ask pairs to swap tables and review each other's "match" judgements. **Discussion prompts:** Which gaps can be closed by collecting more data? Which are structural differences between the models? Who decides in your organisation whether a loss of information is acceptable? **Tip:** Provide the specification extracts or links in the handout, checked for currency, so participants spend time on judgement and not on searching.
### Quiz: Mapping between models **Question 6.** In a mapping table, the badge field "Evidence" has no equivalent element in the ELM. How should you record this? [( )] Mark it as a direct match to avoid a gap [( )] Delete the field from the badge [(X)] Mark the match as none, explain what is lost and propose an action [( )] Rename the field so that it matches an ELM element [[?]] Honest gaps support trust. **** A missing equivalent is a finding. Record "none", say what information is lost or where else it could be recorded, and propose an action. Forcing a match reduces trust in the table. **** **Question 7.** The badge criteria are one block of text, while the ELM works best with separate learning outcomes. What kind of match is this? [( )] Direct [(X)] Partial [( )] None [( )] Not relevant to the mapping [[?]] The meaning is similar but the structure differs. **** The meaning is close, because both describe what the earner achieved, but the structure differs. This is a partial match. The action is to split the text into separate outcome statements. **** ## Toward wallet-based education credentials ### From documents to wallets A credential wallet is an application that lets a person receive, store and share digital credentials under their own control. For education, this means a learner can hold diplomas, micro-credentials and course records in one place and share them with an employer, a university or an agency when needed. Wallets matter for Trustworthiness and Value. The learner decides what to share. The receiver can check who issued the credential and that it has not changed. Both sides save time compared with paper or email processes. Status: wallet-based education credentials are an emerging area. Pilot work has produced results, but national adoption is at an early stage. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. ### The role of the ELM A wallet needs more than a storage function. It needs credentials with a shared, well-defined data structure. Without it, each issuer's credential looks different, and receivers must write special handling for each one. The ELM can provide this shared structure for education credentials. Two pieces of evidence from the topic notes of this course: - The ELM served as the data model for education credentials in the DC4EU wallet pilot. - The DC4EU pilot has published artefacts, such as user journeys and ELM-based data models. National adoption is at an early stage. The ELM therefore plays the role of a content model: it defines what an education credential says. Wallet standards and protocols define how a credential is transported, held and presented. Both layers are needed. When you select standards for a programme, think in layers: data model, credential format, delivery, wallet and trust framework. ### The EUDI Wallet and the timeline The EU Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet is part of the revised eIDAS framework, often called eIDAS 2.0. The wallet is meant to let people identify themselves and share attestations of attributes, which can include education credentials. Facts to know, with their status: - Member States must offer at least one wallet by 24 December 2026. - Germany plans its state wallet, "d-you", for 2 January 2027, with basic functions first. - Regulated private sectors must accept the wallet about one year after issuance starts. - Readiness varies widely between Member States. Status: emerging. Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. These dates matter for planning, but plans can change. Do not promise learners or partners a specific wallet feature or date. Phrase commitments carefully, for example: "We are preparing our credential data so that it can be offered to wallets when our national wallet and our partners are ready." The ELM in a wallet-based credential flow Three parties in a row. An education provider in cyan issues a credential that uses the ELM data model to a learner shown in navy, who holds it in a wallet. The learner shares it with a receiving party, shown in orange for an employer and in lime for an agency, who checks the issuer and the data. Education provider issues, ELM data Learner holds it in a wallet Employer checks and decides Public agency checks and decides issue share The learner chooses what to share and with whom. ### Planning your next steps For a programme or an organisation, a sensible approach to wallet readiness is: 1. **Describe achievements well.** Good ELM-style descriptions are useful whatever the delivery channel. 2. **Keep data clean and structured.** Identifiers, dates and organisation details should be consistent. 3. **Map your existing credentials.** Know your gaps before a wallet partner asks. 4. **Watch national plans.** Follow your national wallet programme and your regulator. 5. **Pilot small.** Test with a limited group, and document what works. 6. **Protect the learner.** Respect privacy, give clear information, and let the learner decide what to share. Policy makers and agencies have a further role: aligning rules, supporting shared data models and avoiding a patchwork of incompatible national formats. **Worked example: Preparing a university for wallets** Role: Marta, head of student administration at a university (illustrative). Marta's university issues PDF certificates for short courses. She cannot promise a wallet feature, since her national wallet plans are still developing. She chooses preparation steps: describing each course with learning outcomes and assessment, cleaning up organisation and learner identifiers, and mapping existing badges to the ELM. She plans a small pilot with one course and a group of volunteers once a suitable test environment is available. She tells staff what is certain, what is planned and what is still open. **Worked example: Advising members of a professional body** Role: Daniel, a policy officer at a sector association (illustrative). Daniel's association represents training providers in a regulated sector. Members ask whether they must accept wallets. Daniel explains that regulated private sectors must accept the wallet about one year after issuance starts, and that it needs to be checked whether and how this affects the sector's education credentials. He advises members to follow national guidance, to prepare structured credential data and to avoid public promises about dates. He records the open questions for the next member meeting. **Practice activity: Wallet readiness briefing** 1. Choose the organisation you work for, or a fictional one in your sector. 2. Write a one-page briefing for your management with three headings: "What is established", "What is emerging", "What we will do in the next six months". 3. Under "What is emerging", include the EUDI Wallet timeline and the DC4EU pilot, with the status note. Do not add facts you cannot verify. 4. Include one sentence that explains the role of the ELM in your own words. 5. Under "What we will do", list three concrete steps from this module.
Facilitator notes **Live element (45 minutes).** Run a role play: one participant plays the manager, one plays the credential lead. The lead presents the briefing in three minutes, the manager asks one hard question, for example "Do we have to issue to wallets next year?" Practise answering without overstating what is known. **Watch for:** claims that wallets are already widely available, promises of dates, and confusion between the data model (ELM) and the wallet. Remind participants to keep the layers apart. **Check before the session:** the wallet dates and national plans for your participants' countries.
### Quiz: Toward wallet-based education credentials **Question 8.** What role does the ELM play in wallet-based education credentials? [( )] It is the wallet application that learners install [(X)] It provides a shared data structure that describes what an education credential says [( )] It replaces the need for any trust framework [( )] It sets the national dates for wallet launches [[?]] Think about the layers: content model, format, delivery and trust. **** The ELM is a data model. It defines the content of an education credential, which helps wallets and receivers handle credentials from different issuers. Wallet applications, formats and trust frameworks are other layers. **** **Question 9.** Which statement about the EUDI Wallet timeline is consistent with the course notes? [( )] All Member States have fully functional wallets with education credentials [( )] Wallet acceptance is voluntary in all sectors forever [(X)] Member States must offer at least one wallet by 24 December 2026, and readiness varies widely between them [( )] Germany's d-you wallet launches with all functions at once [[?]] Remember the status labels: emerging, with varying readiness. **** The course notes say Member States must offer at least one wallet by 24 December 2026, and that readiness varies widely. Germany plans its wallet for 2 January 2027 with basic functions first. **** **Question 10.** A member of the public asks your organisation to confirm that learners can load your credentials into the national wallet next year. What is the best answer? [( )] Promise a date, to reassure them [( )] Say that wallets will never be relevant [(X)] Explain what is established and what is planned, and say you are preparing your data so that you can offer wallet delivery when it is possible [( )] Refuse to discuss it until the wallet is fully available [[?]] Be accurate about status and honest about what is open. **** Wallet adoption is emerging and varies by country. An honest answer separates what is established from what is planned and describes concrete preparation. Promising dates or dismissing the topic are both poor choices. **** ## Assessment and badge ### The assessed task You complete one task with two parts, plus a short knowledge check. **Part 1: Sample European Digital Credential.** Issue a sample credential with the Commission's tools, as practised in module 2, using fictional or agreed test data. Submit the credential (file, export or screenshots) and your issuance log. **Part 2: Mapping table.** Submit your Open Badges 3.0 to ELM mapping table from module 3, with at least eight fields, at least three identified gaps and an action for each gap. **Short reflection (about 150 words).** Explain in your own words the role of the ELM in wallet-based education credentials, and state what is established and what is emerging. A person assesses your submission with the rubric below. The file does not grade your work. ### Rubric Levels: 1 = not yet, 2 = developing, 3 = meets the standard. | Criterion | Level 1: Not yet | Level 2: Developing | Level 3: Meets the standard | |---|---|---|---| | 1. Describing the ELM (outcome 1) | Core classes are missing or confused | Most core classes are named, with some errors in how they relate | Core classes and their relations are described correctly in the credential data and the reflection | | 2. Sample credential (outcome 2) | Credential is incomplete, not sealed or uses real personal data without agreement | Credential is issued but with weak descriptions or an incomplete log | Credential is issued with clear outcomes and assessment information, marked as a sample, with a log of steps and problems | | 3. Mapping table (outcome 3) | Fewer than six fields, matches unexplained | At least eight fields, but match judgements or gap notes are partly unclear | At least eight fields, correct use of direct, partial and none, at least three gaps with concrete actions, tested with sample data | | 4. Wallet role (outcome 4) | Role of the ELM is confused with the wallet itself, or status is overstated | Role is mostly correct, but status of wallet topics is vague | Role is explained accurately, established and emerging items are separated and no unverified facts are added | | 5. Quality of evidence | Evidence is hard to follow or inconsistent | Evidence is complete but sometimes unclear | Evidence is clear, consistent and ready for review | ### Pass rule To earn the badge, you need: - level 3 in criteria 2 and 3, and - at least level 2 in criteria 1, 4 and 5, and - at least 7 of 10 correct answers in the knowledge check below. A person records the decision. If you do not meet the rule, you receive feedback and may resubmit the parts concerned. ### Evidence submitted for the badge - The sample credential (file, export or screenshots) and the issuance log - The mapping table - The short reflection - The result of the knowledge check The badge is "European Learning Model and European Digital Credentials (Ability, L3)", alignment code ICSF-STND-L3-A. It records that you practised this capability on realistic tasks in a controlled setting. It does not prove competency in a job.
Facilitator notes **Assessment session.** Allow 60 minutes after the workshop for participants to finalise their submissions. Assessors should use the rubric as written, check that no real personal data is included without agreement, and give written feedback for every criterion below level 3. Where two assessors are used, compare ratings on a sample of submissions to keep judgements consistent.
### Final knowledge check **Question 1.** Which description of the European Learning Model is correct? [( )] A software tool for sending emails to learners [(X)] A data model that structures the description of learning achievements for exchange between systems [( )] A national law on qualifications [( )] A catalogue of approved training providers [[?]] It is about how information is structured. **** The ELM is a data model. It defines classes and properties for describing learning achievements, so that different systems can exchange them. **** **Question 2.** A credential states only a course title and an issue date. Which ELM-related information would most improve its value for a reader? [( )] A larger logo [( )] A promotional slogan [(X)] Learning outcomes and a description of the assessment and result [( )] The learner's favourite subject [[?]] What does a reader need to decide whether the credential suits their purpose? **** Learning outcomes and assessment information tell a reader what the achievement stands for and how it was verified. Decorative or promotional elements add little. **** **Question 3.** Which pair correctly matches an ELM concept with its purpose? [( )] Awarding organisation: describes the learner's hobbies [( )] Learning activity: names the national wallet provider [(X)] Learning specification: describes what the achievement stands for, including outcomes [( )] Person: stores the issuer's private key [[?]] Review the core class diagram in module 1. **** The learning specification carries the description of what the achievement stands for. The other pairings are incorrect. **** **Question 4.** You are preparing a sample European Digital Credential. Which choice is good practice? [( )] Use a real colleague's data without asking, because it is only a test [( )] Leave the title unmarked so that it looks authentic [(X)] Use fictional data, mark the title as a sample and keep a log of steps and problems [( )] Issue it to real learners to see their reaction [[?]] Protect personal data and avoid confusion with real credentials. **** Fictional data, a "SAMPLE" label and a log keep the exercise safe, clear and reviewable. **** **Question 5.** What do sealing and verification contribute to a European Digital Credential? [( )] They make the credential look more colourful [( )] They guarantee that the learner has a job [(X)] They let a reader detect changes and check the issuer, which supports trust [( )] They convert the credential into a paper certificate [[?]] Think about the Trustworthiness pillar. **** Sealing and verification support trust by allowing a reader to confirm who issued the credential and that its data is unchanged. They say nothing about job outcomes. **** **Question 6.** In your mapping table, a badge field has a similar but narrower equivalent in the ELM. How do you record the match? [( )] Direct [(X)] Partial, with a note on what differs and an action [( )] None, with no note [( )] Remove the row from the table [[?]] Use only direct, partial or none, and explain. **** A similar but narrower equivalent is a partial match. Explain the difference and propose an action, for example adding data or rewording text. **** **Question 7.** Why is a gap in a mapping table useful? [( )] It shows that the mapping failed and should be hidden [( )] It proves that Open Badges 3.0 is unsuitable for any use [(X)] It shows what data to collect, what to accept as a loss, or where the models differ [( )] It removes the need to test the table [[?]] Gaps are findings. **** Gaps give programme leads and policy makers actionable information. Hiding them reduces trust. Testing the table with real data is still needed. **** **Question 8.** What is the role of the ELM in wallet-based education credentials? [( )] It is the wallet application itself [( )] It sets the legal deadlines for wallets [(X)] It supplies a shared structure for the content of education credentials, which wallets and receivers can rely on [( )] It replaces the need for issuer identity [[?]] Content model versus delivery and trust layers. **** The ELM is a content model for education credentials. Wallets, formats, protocols and trust frameworks are separate layers that work together with it. **** **Question 9.** Which statement about the DC4EU pilot is consistent with the course notes? [( )] National adoption of wallet-based education credentials is complete [(X)] The ELM served as the data model for education credentials in the pilot, and national adoption is at an early stage [( )] The pilot replaced the ELM with a different model [( )] The pilot only produced software, no user journeys [[?]] The pilot published user journeys and ELM-based data models. **** The notes state that the ELM served as the data model in the DC4EU pilot, that pilot artefacts such as user journeys and ELM-based data models are published, and that national adoption is at an early stage. **** **Question 10.** A manager asks whether your organisation must issue to wallets on a fixed date next year. What is the best response? [( )] Give a firm date, based on the most optimistic news [( )] Say that nothing is happening [(X)] Explain the established and emerging status, note that readiness varies and that obligations must be checked, and propose preparation steps [( )] Ask the manager to wait until the wallet is fully available before discussing it [[?]] Be accurate about status and offer practical preparation. **** Wallet adoption is emerging and readiness varies. A good answer separates facts from plans, flags what must be checked and proposes preparation such as cleaning data and mapping credentials. **** ## Sources and further reading Status as of November 2026; check before publishing. Only official or framework-owner sources are listed. Search for the titles on the owner's website. Links are intentionally omitted so that none can become outdated or incorrect. - European Commission, Europass: information on European Digital Credentials for Learning and the associated tools and user documentation. - European Commission: European Learning Model documentation and data model specification (check the current version). - 1EdTech Consortium: Open Badges 3.0 specification. - World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): Verifiable Credentials Data Model. - European Union: Regulation on electronic identification and trust services, as amended by the eIDAS 2.0 framework (European Digital Identity Framework), published in the Official Journal of the European Union. - European Commission: European Digital Identity (EUDI) Wallet pages, including the architecture and reference framework. - DC4EU consortium: publicly available pilot artefacts, including user journeys and ELM-based data models for education credentials. - ICoBC: ICoBC Credentialing Skills Framework (ICSF) and VRITE quality principles.