The operational definition of competency-based education

J. Gervais

Source Link

As education in the United States pushes for accountability, educational programs across the country are attempting to find innovative ways to measure student learning outcomes. Competency-based education is one model favorable among many academic institutions and accreditation agencies because it links theory to practice (Clark, Competency-based education for social work: Evaluation and curriculum issues, 1976; Hall & Jones, Competency-based education: A process for the improvement of education, 1976; Johnstone & Soares, Change, 46, 2014, 12; Pace, Competency education series: Policy brief one, 2013). The research indicates that there is no standard definition of competency-based education and agreement on the criteria that encompass this model (Book, All hands on deck: Ten lessons from early adopters of competency-based education, 2014; Le, Wolfe, & Steinberg, The past and the promise: Today's competency education movement, 2014; Riesman, On competence: A critical analysis of competence-based reforms in higher education, 1979).

Methods

This research reviewed the literature on competency-based education and interviewed key informants from various disciplines to gain a deeper understanding of this phenomenon.

Results

This research constructs an operational definition of competency-based education and then applies this definition to build an assessment tool to determine the extent that competency-based education exists in an academic program.

1 Introduction

Competency-based education has been defined in multiple ways and interpreted differently across academic programs. Le, Wolfe, and Steinberg (2014), report that competency-based education “is an evolving field with no universally shared definition of what makes a model competency based” (p. 4). Book (2014) and Riesman (1979) agree and argue that because there is no commonly accepted definition, competency-based education (CBE) lacks conformity around standards and a theoretical backing thus making it difficult to clearly define and implement consistently across programs. It is imperative, as more emphasis is placed on outcome-based education, that a universal definition of CBE be created.

Spady (1977) defines CBE as “a data-based, adaptive, performance-oriented set of integrated processes that facilitate, measure, record, and certify within the context of flexible time parameters the demonstration of known, explicitly stated, and agreed upon learning outcomes that reflect successful functioning in life roles” (p. 10). Riesman (1979) defines CBE as:

A form of education that derives curriculum from an analysis of a prospective or actual role in modern society and that attempts to certify student progress on the basis of demonstrated performance in some or all aspects of that role. Theoretically, such demonstrations of competence are independent of time served in formal educational settings (p. 6).

Other phrases that have been used to describe CBE are problem-based learning, mastery-based learning, outcome-based learning, and performance-based learning but all do not capture the essence of CBE so for the purposes of this research, CBE will be the formal terminology used.

Based on the collection of data from the literature and key informant interviews, the following definition of CBE was constructed:

CBE is defined as an outcome-based approach to education that incorporates modes of instructional delivery and assessment efforts designed to evaluate mastery of learning by students through their demonstration of the knowledge, attitudes, values, skills, and behaviors required for the degree sought.

2 Overview of CBE

As CBE gains popularity, it is important to understand its historical origins, theoretical foundation, and purpose in education.

Historical accounts in higher education trace the use of CBE back to the Morrill Land-Acts of 1862. The Morrill Land-Acts “provided the basis for an applied education oriented to the needs of farm and townspeople who could not attend the more exclusive and prestigious universities and colleges of the eastern United States” (Clark, 1976, p. 23). As the industrial revolution brought about advanced farm machinery, the construction of land-grant colleges in rural areas provided training opportunities for future farmers to assist with the operation and management of a large percentage of this country's agricultural production (Perkin, 2007). These programs relied less on rote teaching and learning and more on training (Goodchild, 2007). Students were examined on how they were able to apply what they learned to practical job situations.

Higher education, prior to the industrial revolution, was for the elite and prepared learners to be thinkers not doers. The progressive education movement, attempting to accommodate the post-industrial labor force, contributed to the philosophical CBE foundation by advocating that education needed to focus less on a traditional-based learning environment to one that was more student-centered and prepared a student for their role in society (Riesman, 1979).

Theoretical foundation of CBE

CBE's theoretical foundation has multiple learning theory roots: behaviorists, functionalist, and humanistic learning theories. CBE is an eclectic model adopting concepts from several modern learning theorists. One such theorist is Ralph W. Tyler (Le et al., 2014). Ralph Tyler was an educator renowned for linking measurable learning objectives and assessment strategies (Tyler, 1976). CBE is a synthesis between a liberal arts education and the professional education movement. The professional education movement placed emphasis on practical preparation for a profession and Tyler (1976) advocated its importance for students to learn the theoretical foundations to best understand how to apply their learning to practice. This approach merged the concept of applying theory to practice.

Tyler (1976) advocated “curriculum should be dynamic, always under evaluation and revision, rather than a static, set program” (Le et al., 2014, p. 13). This dynamic approach to learning shifts curriculum development from being a content driven model to a student-centered approach to learning. This student-centered approach to learning is a foundational concept of CBE (Clark, 1976; Le et al., 2014; Neumann, 1979).

John Carroll, psychologist and educator, studied how students learn and acquire knowledge. Carroll (1963) outlined what and how a student learns is based on the time it takes them to learn a task, the learning opportunities provided to learn the task, the amount of time a student is willing to invest in learning a task, the quality of instruction regarding the task, and the students understanding of the task. This learning approach considers the student's ability to learn and the instructor's quality of teaching.

Benjamin Bloom, influenced by Carroll's work, was a theorist and psychologist who believed “most students (perhaps more than 90%) can master what we have to teach them, and it is the task of instruction to find the means which will enable our students to master the subject under consideration” (Hall & Jones, 1976, p. 9). This “mastery of learning” approach allows for assessment of a student's learning pre and post a lesson to determine the length, extent, depth required and what educational interventions would be helpful to assist the student in learning (Le et al., 2014). Learning objectives are developed based on the outcome of a pre-assessment of student knowledge. Instruction, based on the learning objectives, focuses on specific behaviors a student needs to demonstrate in order to achieve competence.

Fred Keller, developer of the Keller Plan, was a theorist and behavioral psychologist who, like Bloom, focused on instruction delivery that allowed for mastery and self-paced learning. Keller developed a method of instructional design called learning modules. Keller's learning modules break down learning objectives into specific activities that a student performs in order to gain knowledge of the material and demonstrate their learning (Smaldino, Lowther, & Russell, 2008). Demonstration of mastery is through the achievement of these learning objectives. Once a lesson is complete, a post-assessment determines where learning gaps still exist and where additional support is needed. Individualized learning is offered to assist student's still struggling with achieving competence.

Mastery of learning recognizes that not everyone learns at the same time or pace. Hall and Jones (1976) advocate that mastery of learning requires steering instruction away from group-based learning and focusing on each student's ability, learning style, and learning pace. Hall and Jones (1976) state that most students can master learning if an instructor can recognize the learning needs of a student and provide continued learning opportunities until they master the instructional content.

Skager (1979) defines self-directed learning as “a willingness to initiate and maintain systematic learning on [a student's] own initiative” (p. 519). Students in a self-directed learning environment learn material based on their interests and in a pace comfortable for them. Although the teacher provides the outline of what is to be learned, students construct their own knowledge and understanding through exploring, creating, testing, and observing others. In a traditional education model, a guided schedule and pace is dictated by the teacher. In a self-directed model “students find learning relevant to their needs when they are allowed to study under conditions of high interest and reinforcement” (Clark, 1976, p. 33).

Fred Keller's work with learning modules was informed by Frederic W. Taylor and Charles R. Allen. Both men were from the post-World War I era and looked for ways to improve job production. Neumann (1979) outlines how Taylor, using the underpinnings of behavioral learning theory and Allen adopting components of functional learning theory were able to build curriculum using “highly refined, specifically stated skills and functions” (p. 68). Frederick W. Taylor, author of The Principles of Scientific Method, developed the concept of job analysis. Job analysis breaks down the components of a job and allows for management to develop training manuals that outlined a step-by-step process on how to perform a specific job. This detailed list then allowed for better assessment and evaluation of an employee's work performance (Neumann, 1979).

Charles R. Allen developed the concept of trade analysis. Trade analysis uses information from Taylor's work on job analysis to understand and break down all the components of a person's job description (Neumann, 1979). Once all the information is gathered on the specific skills a person needs to perform a job, that is, a social worker would need to know how to assess for a person's risk of harm, curriculum is constructed to impart those skills. Upon completion of the curriculum, the student is prepared to perform the skill(s) (Neumann, 1979). This approach to curriculum development is the heart of any CBE model. Curriculum is designed working backward from desired skills (Wiggens & McTighe, 2005).

Components of CBE

The theoretical foundation of CBE provides an overall structure for the education model. The goal in this review is to provide specific components that encompass a CBE model.

The research agrees that a CBE model includes an emphasis on outcomes, a strong pedagogy, the use of interdisciplinary resources, and assessment of a student attainment of competencies across the curriculum (Albanese, Mejicano, Anderson, & Gruppen, 2008; Grant et al., 1979; Hall & Jones, 1976; Johnstone & Soares, 2014; Malan, 2000; O'Connell & Moomaw, 1975; Spady, 1977; Utz & Leonard, 1975). A student demonstrates readiness to graduate when they can demonstrate the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and behavior gained through attainment of the identified competencies (Grant et al., 1979; O'Connell & Moomaw, 1975).

As time has progressed and more programs have implemented CBE, so has the development of language to competency-based learning. Book (2014) and O'Connell and Moomaw (1975) outline a process by which competencies measure student learning by specifically stating the levels of performance a student is expected to master across the curriculum. O'Connell and Moomaw (1975) argue that competencies are different from goals and learning objectives. Competencies are written in the present tense and based on what a student might do, whereas goals are written in future tense and based on what a person ought to be able to do. Competencies emphasize outcomes or a realized ability, they are not time-based or “gestalt in nature” (O'Connell & Moomaw, 1975). The development of competencies should be “transparent” and aligned with “industry and academic expectations” (Johnstone & Soares, 2014). Goals, on the other hand, emphasize ability or expectation and are time-based. Behavioral objectives differ from competencies in that they are reductionist, tied directly to the outcome, and suggest “that someone knows the best learning experience for each behavioral objective” (p. 31). Behavioral objectives measure overt behavior, whereas competencies include covert behaviors. Behavioral objectives are written to suggest what the teacher will do to get the student to the point of competence versus what the student must do or know. O'Connell and Moomaw (1975) report that “unlike the behavioral objectives movement, the competency-based model adopts the stance that learning should be cumulative and additive, leading to the development of the ‘whole’ or ‘competent’ person the institution would like to produce” (p. 27).

In addition to language differences, how a competency-based model is delivered has evolved over time. Book (2014) outlines two different models of content delivery that are currently being used in a competency-based model. The first, direct assessment, is “untethered from course material and credit hour, learners demonstrate competencies, particularly mastery, at their own pace, typically online, and progress through academic programs when they are ready to do so” (p. 4). Degrees are awarded based on a student's demonstration of mastery through a variety of assessments. Grades are nonexistent but rather formal evaluations are structured to measure attainment of the course competencies for the degree. The second model, a credit hour program, is where competencies are “defined at a program level into topics that can be formulated into courses of the appropriate length and complexity” (p. 4). Learning in this type of program is measured by a student's time in seat, courses taken, and graded assignments. Like traditional education models, degrees in a credit hour program are awarded based on a set number of credits taken and grades are awarded on an A-F grading scale and are the formal evaluation of a student's achievement of the program competencies.

Competencies are developed based on the feedback and contribution from all stakeholders involved, that is, students, teachers, and community partners (Clark, 1976; Johnstone & Soares, 2014; O'Connell & Moomaw, 1975). Programs are encouraged to develop advisory councils, consisting of stakeholders, to provide information and feedback to help aid in curriculum construction (Clark, 1976; Johnstone & Soares, 2014). This also ensures that professionals in the field inform the curriculum. As the needs of a profession change, so should the preparation for that profession.

How the teacher structures learning is key in a CBE model. It is no longer acceptable to walk into a class and profess one's knowledge about a subject. CBE requires a great amount of preparation on the front end prior to a class beginning (Elbow, 1979). Planning requires thinking about the purpose the class serves in the larger scheme of courses, developing instruction aligned with the learning objectives, and deciding how to deliver the course curriculum, that is, online or on-ground. In a CBE model, learning is structured as horizontal and vertical (Albanese et al., 2008). Horizontal learning means that students must learn to integrate what they learn across the curriculum. Vertical learning means that the student must master the content of each course in depth. A student in a CBE model must demonstrate mastery of both the horizontal and vertical aspects of each competency required in each course.

In addition to course mapping, the use of technology is an important tool in supporting student learning. Clark (1976) posits that a teacher's ability to use different modes of technology to aid learning will allow each student to learn material based on their own developmental and learning needs. Another consideration when prepping a course is the use of students as mentors to other students in the classroom. Mentoring helps facilitate an open learning environment where the teacher is the facilitator of knowledge, and learning takes place among one another rather than through one person. A teacher's ability to scaffold knowledge for students and use different teaching tools to assist in student's attainment of the course competencies and practice behaviors are true components of a CBE classroom (Clark, 1976).

A final consideration is the implementation of an “open system” that allows for modification to the program structure, competencies, and instructional design based on feedback from the stakeholders, that is, students, teachers, and community partners (Clark, 1976; Hall & Jones, 1976).

Assessment in a CBE program is a key component to student learning. Assessments provide students the ability to gauge their acquisition and demonstration of a competency and the teacher's ability to determine (a) the students learning needs, and (b) whether the assessments in place are measuring what they are supposed to measure (Albanese et al., 2008; Clark, 1976; Grant et al., 1979; Hall & Jones, 1976; Le et al., 2014; O'Connell & Moomaw, 1975). Assessment is based on the performance of the individual learner and not in comparison to other learners. Grading is no longer on a bell curve. Assessments have multiple purposes. Pre and postassessments assist the teacher in learning about the learning needs of the individual. They also inform the student on their specific learning needs and where to focus their studies, that is, how many activities to partake in and how much time will be needed to be invested.

Using the work of Benjamin Bloom, CBE uses two types of assessments to measure student learning: formative and summative (Grant et al., 1979; Hall & Jones, 1976; Le et al., 2014). Formative assessments are assessments that assist students in measuring their learning to date and in identifying key concepts they still need to study and practice. Formative assessments are self-assessments (Grant et al., 1979). Formative assessments also inform faculty on the learning needs of the students and allow for immediate feedback on changes or updates needed to the curriculum. Summative assessments (sometimes referred to as evaluations) are final assessments that occur less often and are meant to record and determine a student's ability to continue on to the next competency, learning module, or to graduate. Summative assessments also assist teachers in determining gaps in learning and inform changes needed to the curriculum (Hall & Jones, 1976; Le et al., 2014). Assessments are an integral component of a CBE model and should be considered, created, and implemented programmatically across the curriculum building the knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, and behavior of the student (Albanese et al., 2008; Grant et al., 1979; Hall & Jones, 1976; Le et al., 2014; O'Connell & Moomaw, 1975).

In a CBE model students can receive credit for prior learning. If a student has acquired prior knowledge and/or skill and can pass the assessment(s) structured to assess demonstration of the competency, the student can then proceed onto the next learning module or course (Albanese et al., 2008; Hall & Jones, 1976). For example, let us assume there is a competency regarding human behavior and the social environment. A learning objective for this competency may outline that students will gain knowledge and understanding of developmental theories. Activities may include watching a video on the variety of developmental models, reading a text, or listening to a lecture. The assessment then requires a student to review a psychosocial assessment and apply three developmental theorist models and identify the developmental stages and areas of developmental crisis that the client may be experiencing. A student who feels they have prior knowledge of developmental theory and can demonstrate competence can attempt to complete the assessment without partaking in the learning activities. The teacher will grade the paper and use a rubric to outline areas of strength and weakness in the paper and either determine the student has obtained competence for this particular learning objective or that they have not met the criteria outlined and offer suggestive learning opportunities in the areas that they did not meet.

Addressing prior learning is only one consideration when implementing a CBE model. How a CBE model is implemented will determine its success. Johnstone and Soares (2014) outline that although controversy exists around the use of a CBE model, successful implementation “requires a deep exploration and often significant re-design of administrative, financial, and academic systems within institutions” if implementing CBE at an institutional level (p. 14). At a department level, once competencies are identified, the department faculty should take time to translate the competencies into course topics that address a student's developmental learning process (Albanese et al., 2008; Clark, 1976; Hall & Jones, 1976; Johnstone & Soares, 2014; O'Connell & Moomaw, 1975). Once the curriculum has been established, the role of the faculty needs to be clearly defined and responsibilities assigned.

Finally, one person or a committee of faculty needs to ensure that as a whole, mastery of learning takes place horizontally and vertically. Courses can no longer be taught separate from one another but rather build and expand from one another (Albanese et al., 2008; Hall & Jones, 1976; Johnstone & Soares, 2014). Hall and Jones (1976) agree and argue that CBE is not a program that can be “plugged in” or implemented with a “flip of a switch” (p. 22). Instead CBE takes time to plan, organize, trial, and implement. This approach needs buy-in from all faculty, administration, students, and community partners in order for CBE to be successful. As a dynamic model, ongoing assessment of student learning is essential to inform programmatic changes. Hall and Jones (1976) state, “it is extremely unlikely that a process such as CBE can ever become a finished, completely installed thing. If you find one with a little brass plaque commemorating its date of completion, then almost by definition it cannot be a CBE program” (p. 23).

Table 1, a model developed by Pace (2013), outlines a continuum that demonstrates the progression of a competency-based model from a traditional education model to a CBE model. This continuum can be a helpful guide to assist program developers in determining where they are at in adopting and implementing a competency-based model (Pace, 2013, pp. 6–7).

Table 1. Competency education continuum

TraditionalEmergingCompetency-basedSchool culture Learning happens inside a traditional classroom with little to no accommodation of student interests and learning styles Educators make limited accommodation for student interests and learning styles by incorporating real-world experiences and partners into the classroom Students choose from a wide range of learning experiences at school, online, and in their community. Educators work with diverse partners and students to piece together individual learning pathways that accommodate student interests and learning styles

Learning progression Students are expected to master grade level college and career ready standards Students are expected to master grade level college and career ready standards and transferable skills Students are expected to master competencies aligned to college and career ready standards. Each competency has clear, transferable learning objectives

Learning pace Students advance at the instructor's pace regardless of whether they mastered the learning objectives or need additional time Students may take accelerated courses if they demonstrate readiness. Students receive specialized support when they fall behind peers. Educators continually group students to encourage peer learning and maximize learning gains for all Students receive customized supports and accelerated opportunity both in-school and out-of-school to ensure they stay on pace to graduate college and career ready

Instruction Every classroom has one teacher who designs and delivers an instructional program with very little differentiation for individual students Educators engage in some collaboration across teams and content areas to align and differentiate instruction based on real-time feedback on student performance Educators work collaboratively with each other, community partners, and students to develop a unique learning plan for every student based on student interests, learning styles, and real-time data

Assessment system Assessment instruments are used at set times to evaluate and classify students, not to guide instruction. Students have one opportunity to take the summative assessment at the end of the year Educators use formative assessment instruments when they believe students are ready to demonstrate mastery. These assessments help educators tailor instruction so that more students are ready to master the summative assessment at the end of the year A comprehensive assessment system is an essential part of the learning system. Formative assessments guide daily instruction and student selection of customized learning opportunities. Summative assessments show mastery of competencies. Students take these assessments when they are ready and have multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery

Grading policies Grades are norm-referenced, reflect mastery of course standards, and are typically based on weighted quarters and a final exam Grades reflect mastery of course standards and skills and are typically based on weighted quarters and a final exam or project. Students have multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery of required coursework Grades reflect the degree of mastery of competencies ranging from advanced to not yet competent. When students do not earn course credit their record indicates competencies that need to be re-learned instead of the entire course

Instruction Every classroom has one teacher who designs and delivers an instructional program with very little differentiation for individual students Educators engage in some collaboration across teams and content areas to align and differentiate instruction based on real-time feedback on student performance Educators work collaboratively with each other, community partners, and students to develop a unique learning plan for every student based on student interests, learning styles, and real-time data

3 Methods

This research reviewed the competency-based literature and interviewed key informants from various disciplines. A comprehensive definition of CBE was developed. A rubric was then developed, which can be used to determine if a particular program encompasses the criteria and components of a competency-based model.

Triangulation addressed validity threats to the definition of CBE and corresponding rubric, which included: (a) analysis and coding of data; (b) the interviewing of key informants; and (c) review and validation. First, data from the literature was analyzed, coded, and recorded to construct an operational definition of CBE. Second, five key informants from various disciplines, who were identified using a snowball sampling process, were interviewed. Key informants were purposely selected based on their professional knowledge and experience working with a CBE model and ability to inform the definition of CBE.

A total of 11 informants were identified and emailed to elicit their participation in this research study. Five participants responded and agreed to partake in the study. All five key informants elected to be interviewed over the phone and for the interview to be recorded. The audio-recordings were later transcribed, analyzed, and coded using Hatch's (2002) typological analysis approach. The coded data collected from the literature and interviews was then used to develop a comprehensive definition of CBE. A rubric was then constructed from this definition, which operationalized CBE components into measurable criterion (Appendix).

The rubric scaling was developed mimicking the continuum concept from Pace (2013) outlined in Table 1. The descriptions for each of the dimensions in the rubric were reworded to represent action-based language that allows the assessor the ability to easily identify the existence of each of the dimensions within a CBE model (Stevens & Levi, 2012).

Finally, the third step in this triangulation process asked the five key informants from the second step to review and validate the operational definition of CBE and corresponding rubric created. Three out of the original five participants responded. Data from the completed surveys were reviewed and participants' comments informed edits to the definition of CBE and corresponding rubric.

4 Results

The key informant interviews provided a foundation for what is currently the structure and language of a CBE model in the 21st century. At times, however, the current language did not align with earlier literature. As a result, all perspectives were presented and merged to form the operational definition constructed. An example of this is the usage of learning modules. Early literature discusses that learning modules were prevalent in a CBE model (Neumann, 1979) as a mode of delivering education, but in interviews with the key informants, learning modules were an optional component in a CBE model. Learning modules were included in the operational definition but labeled as an optional component.

A participant limitation in this research design was the amount of knowledge that was required of key informants. Key informants were required to have extensive knowledge of CBE in order to articulate the components in an academic program and across the curriculum. This included those that were directly involved in the construction and implementation of a CBE model in higher education. Given that the literature presented difficulty with a common language or approach to CBE, it was no surprise that key informants also had their own interpretation. As a result, a barrier to finding participants may have been due to a language barrier on what is considered a CBE model, that is, problem-based learning, mastery-based learning, outcome-based learning, and performance-based learning. Another barrier could have been a result of the knowledge-base of CBE needed by participants or the sampling method chosen for this research design. When the operational definition was developed, three of the five respondents were able to validate the findings. It is suggested that future research validate the findings of this research by expanding the pool of key informants to include educators across multiple disciplines.

Finally, it is suggested that future research conduct a content analysis on a variety of academic disciplines' accreditation standards and/or institutional/program structures that identify as being a CBE model. This will not only attempt to determine credibility of the rubric created but also whether the components and criteria are transferable and dependable statements across disciplines.

5 Discussion

Johnstone and Soares (2014) argue that with concerns over rising tuition costs, mounting student debt, and a lack of alignment between education and the labor market, traditional education is in jeopardy. President Obama, in his public policy Making college affordable: A better agenda for the middle class outlines the need for higher education to become more innovative in the classroom to meet the needs of the 21st century learner (Johnstone & Soares, 2014). The Department of Education supports more accountability in education. As the 21st Century demands better prepared workers for the labor force, academia needs to be ready to meet this need (Weise & Christensen, 2014).

Newman, Couturier, and Scurry (2004) outline critical concepts that academic institutions should consider when addressing the needs of the 21st century learner. Although 90% of college graduates are prepared for the job market, many report that they did not feel well prepared for the actual skills required of the job (Book, 2014; Newman et al., 2004). Resistance to developing outcome-based models in higher education may be a result of conflicting policies between academic institutions and the Department of Education and between faculty and institutions. It may also be due to the complexity of restructuring an institution/program to an outcomes-based model. More education and awareness in higher education about CBE and the role it can play in professional programs is suggested.

Implementing a CBE model takes a considerable amount of time and buy-in from students, faculty, administration, employers, and community partners. The hope is that the operational definition of CBE constructed within this research study will provide a more cohesive definition to a model that is currently defined and implemented eclectically across programs and disciplines in the United States.

Appendix A: Competency-based education rubric

The purpose of this rubric is to assess the existence of competency-based education criterion in academic institutions/programs/accreditation standards.