evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

QQI Pilots Microsoft Copilot to Review VET Standards While Providers Draft Curricula with ChatGPT

Ireland · Dublin · See the Ireland profile · See the Dublin profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 81% 33/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Ireland's qualifications regulator QQI has piloted Microsoft Copilot since 2024, in a closed environment, to compare standards and map learning-outcome gaps, while providers use ChatGPT for curriculum drafting — an OECD case study finds real but tightly scoped, supervised use.

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI); Lir Business Services & Training Centre
Period
2024–2025
Keywords
vocational education, qualifications regulation, curriculum development

Context

Quality and Qualifications Ireland (QQI) is the sole national awarding body for further education and training (FET) qualifications, responsible for maintaining prescriptive, often dated Award Specifications with a relatively small regulatory team, and since 2024 has piloted Microsoft Copilot in a closed environment for selected analytical and administrative tasks, including refining text, comparing and mapping standards, identifying gaps between learning outcomes, and conducting thematic analysis of programme validation and review reports.

Objectives

QQI's own 2025 Corporate Plan confirms the pilot and states that staff are given training and support, with feedback being gathered to inform a decision on full roll-out, while QQI stresses that AI is not used for substantive content generation, validation decisions or regulatory approval and that human oversight and legal accountability remain essential.

Activities

At provider level, an OECD (2026) case study documents Lir Business Services & Training Centre using tools such as ChatGPT since around 2024 to analyse labour-market trends and draft learning outcomes, assessment templates, lesson plans and learner resources aligned with QQI module descriptors, with all outputs reviewed by qualified educators before use.

Results

Providers report that AI has 'levelled the playing field somewhat' for smaller, privately funded training organisations without large curriculum teams, though nationally, OECD interviews describe Ireland's overall AI use in VET curriculum and qualification development as early and exploratory, concentrated in discrete tasks rather than systematic integration.

Conclusions

QQI notes ongoing caution about inputting confidential draft standards even within its closed system, reflecting a pilot that remains tightly scoped and supervised rather than a settled, sector-wide practice.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — No budget figures published; delivered via existing Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT licences rather than bespoke procurement.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — Pilot running since 2024; feedback gathering ongoing ahead of a full roll-out decision, per QQI's 2025 Corporate Plan.
Staffing & skills
QQI staff (trained on Copilot use), Lir Business Services & Training Centre educators reviewing AI-drafted outputs

Conditions for success

  • Closed pilot environment with staff training and structured feedback ahead of a roll-out decision
  • Human review of every AI-drafted output before use, whether by QQI or by provider educators

Common failure modes

  • QQI notes ongoing caution about inputting confidential draft standards even within its closed system
  • OECD characterises national VET AI uptake as non-systematic and tightly scoped rather than integrated

Where it fits

Governance type
national qualifications regulator pilot plus independent provider-level use
Scale
one national regulator pilot and one documented provider case study
Income level
high-income

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful