While not a new academic innovation, competency-based education (CBE) has increased in popularity in the last several years due to the market changes related to student price sensitivity, attention to the time needed to complete a degree, and the perception of misalignment of academic programming to career-readiness. Especially interesting to an adult student with experience, CBE has also gained traction amongst licensure-based professions for its focus on mastery-based learning as well. Some institutions of higher education have exclusively focused on the use of CBE, while others have opted to incorporate into their existing and more traditional programming options. Moreover, contemporary students are looking for expedited graduation timelines, low-cost, and authentic learning opportunities—all of which can be accomplished through thoughtful use of competency-based education.
What is competency-based education (CBE)?
Ultimately, the form that CBE takes is highly dependent on the institution and program offering it, but the following tenets are most common in the implementation of this learning format (Burnette, 2016; Gallagher, 2014; Haughton, 2019; Johnstone & Soares, 2014; Kulik, et al, 2020; Kumar & Aithal, 2019; Vargas, et al, 2019; Wang, et al, 2021). Importantly, a program does not need to incorporate all tenets commonly found in competency-based education to be considered CBE, though the ones in bold represent hallmarks of this learning format that are found in most, if not all.
Common tenets of CBE:
- Emphasis on student learning or demonstration of mastery over seat time or transfer of knowledge,
- Reliance on nonlinear, self-paced learning over methods that depend on standard start and end dates (programs that incorporate this tenet are labeled as direct assessment CBE programs since they rely on assessment of mastery versus adherence to credit hour),
- Individualized learning path, based on a student’s previous experience(s) and/or individual rate of learning,
- Prominence of authentic, performance-based assessments,
- Represents an explicit mapping of competencies to course learning objectives to program learning objectives,
- Encompasses a variety of proven instructional methodologies, including, but not limited to direct instruction (in a classroom or online); experiential, laboratory, experiential learning; internship; and field or practicum work, and
- Disaggregation of the faculty role from knowledge transfer to facilitator of mastery demonstration.
Not to be confused with prior learning assessment or credit for prior learning, CBE may include the opportunity for a student to demonstrate a competency through an assessment of their prior learning and/or experiences as well, but given residency requirements and the veracity of most programs, it would be rare for an incoming student to be fully competent in a program’s learning objectives without any other type of learning activities.
Another area of confusion in understanding CBE is using competencies to measure learning, rather than learning objectives. Programs that elect to measure competencies, dispositions, or other measures not commonly articulated as learning objectives might be considered a hybrid CBE, but since they still adhere to the credit hour and start/end dates of the traditional academic calendar, they are not considered CBE from an accreditation perspective.
Current State at NLU
NLU is in its early stages of adopting CBE, starting with an approach that adheres to the traditional academic calendar and credit hour, but that disaggregates learning into direct assessment modules (that are also mapped to coursework). Select faculty from NLU and a few other universities in Illinois that are entitled Institutions for the Gateways to Opportunity Early Childhood Credential have identified the competencies and developed content—Summative Assessments, formative Learning Activities, and Rubrics—for each competency. Faculty and Learning Experience Design (LxD) teams have developed a shell for each course that includes the modules, and its Summative Assessments, formative Learning Activities, and Rubrics associated with each module (or competency).
Each module includes a Summative Assessment that is assessed by faculty using a Master Rubric (Distinguished, Competent, Developing, Unacceptable). Students complete the competency if the score is 5% or higher on the Summative Assessment within three attempts. Students can complete the Summative Assessment without completing the Formative Learning Activities, which help develop the knowledge and skills associated with the competency (and its sub-competencies). However, if students score under 85% in their first or second attempts, the faculty will provide coaching and recommend the student complete select Learning Activities before attempting the Summative Assessment again. This targets feedback and provides a personalized path for students as they navigate their own mastery of the competencies.
Summative Assessment
Students will see the Summative Assessment, which they can attempt first, or after completing one or more of the Learning Activities. Students must score 85% or higher to complete the competency.
Formative Learning Activities
Students can begin with the Learning Activities (activities with submissions, discussion posts), or they can attempt the Summative Assessment. If students do not score 85% or higher, they can attempt the Summative Assessment again, or complete Activity 1 (and Activities 2 and/or 3 as well). Students initially see Activity 1, but must submit to Activity 1 before they see each subsequent activity, as the activities build on each other. Faculty assess the submissions as “Met” or “Not Met”. Completion of the Learning Activities does not directly affect “completion” of the competency.
Students who still do not achieve 85% on the Summative Assessment on the third attempt will receive additional coaching from the faculty, who will then provide an additional attempt (using the individual user release conditions in D2L).
A key measure of the success for the pilot of the competency-based modules was the community that faculty worked to build over time with students engaged in the modules. They met weekly during “Competency Coffee Shops”, which provided space for students to learn from each other, get targeted support from faculty and hear from outside speakers on topics such as time management, Learning Support available at NLU and content related to the modules. While the module content is presented asynchronously, students still found it beneficial to engage in these synchronous zoom sessions.
Because the ECE modules are aligned with a statewide credential, that all Institutions of Higher Education that offer ECE programming are entitled to offer coursework for, the process of “transferring” from a two-year school to NLU is seamless. For example, if a learner has earned a Level 4 ECE Credential through coursework and an Associate’s Degree at a Community College, they can transfer into NLU needing only the competencies that lead to the level 5 ECE Credential (along with any additional general education courses needed for B.A. Degree attainment and state licensure for teaching in Illinois. This has created a smooth process for students that does not add unnecessary time or cost to degree completion.
Future State at NLU
A team of administrators, faculty, and other stakeholders are engaged in the pre-work necessary to work towards adopting a Direct Assessment model of CBE where students would engage in their learning at their own pace, unencumbered by the academic calendar and traditional articulations of credit hour. A change like this represents a significant shift to the operations of the institution, how it is approved (e.g., accreditation and financial aid approvals), as well as other shifts in the academic operation. As such, the team is making steady progress and doing all the research and ideation needed to generate a thoughtful, feasible, and confident approach to Direct Assessment CBE. Stay tuned!
Burnette, D. M. (2016). The renewal of competency-based education: A review of the literature. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 64(2), 84–93. https://doi-org.nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/07377363.2016.1177704
Gallagher, C. W. (2014). Disrupting the game-changer: Remembering the history of competency-based education. Change, 46(6), 16–23. https://doi-org.nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.969177
Haughton, N. A. (2019). Active learning strategies and competency-based design in research education: A longitudinal review. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 19(4). https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v19i4.25747
Johnstone, S. M., & Soares, L. (2014). Principles for developing competency-based education programs. Change, 46(2), 12–19. https://doi-org.nl.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00091383.2014.896705
Kulik, A., Lazareva, P., Ippolitova, N., Egorova, A., & Nedorezova, O. (2020). Competency-based approach and competencies in higher education: A theoretical review. Propósitos y Representaciones, 8(SPE2), e645. http://dx.doi.org/10.20511/pyr2020.v8nSPE2.645
Kumar, S., & Aithal, P. S. (2019). Competency assessment and grading in higher education. Scholedge International Journal of Multidisciplinary & Allied Studies, 6(12), 127–136.
Vargas, H., Heradio, R., Chacon, J., De La Torre, L., Farias, G., Galan, D., & Dormido, S. (2019). Automated assessment and monitoring support for competency-based courses. IEEE Access, 7, 41043–41051. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2019.2908160
Wang, H., Tlili, A., Lehman, J. D., Lu, H., & Huang, R. (2021). Investigating feedback implemented by instructors to support online competency-based learning (CBL): A multiple case study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 18(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00241-6
