Implications for educator preparation programs considering competency-based education

The competency-based educational (CBE) model has been implemented in numerous colleges and universities across the United States since its inception. While some of these institutions have elected to adopt CBE within a limited number of academic departments or programs, others have chosen to build their entire curriculum in such a way that requires all students to demonstrate what they know, what they are able to do, and their level of proficiency within specific skill sets. Educator preparation programs, also commonly known as teacher education programs, are particularly well-suited for a competency-based educational model given that state departments of education responsible for issuing professional licenses or certificates expect that graduates will be ready to teach upon completion of their institution's preparation program. Prior to receiving their state license, these individuals must first demonstrate their proficiency in content knowledge, pedagogy (instructional methods), classroom management, and other skills required for effective teaching. Institutions that adhere to a competency-based educational model can experience significant challenges when seeking program approval from a state whose requirements remain antiquated and may not be conducive to the CBE model. It is often incumbent upon institutional representatives to articulate the competency-based educational model to state education officials, and to espouse its relevance to effective teaching and powerful learning. A simple way of understanding CBE is that learning is emphasized over seat time—the belief being that it is more important for students to demonstrate what they know and are able to do rather than simply complete a course and then move on. Students must achieve competency in every course or they are not allowed to progress onward in a CBE model.

Some state department of education officials are receptive to a conversation about competency-based education and how it aligns with traditional requirements. Other state departments are unable to consider alternative learning models such as CBE due to limitations within their current state statutes. Regardless, it is imperative to properly articulate some of the basic tenets of a competency-based educational model to stakeholders who are not already familiar with CBE:

Instead, it is a different way to earn a degree. It is just as rigorous and just as challenging as a degree completed within a traditional educational framework—and in some instances, even more so. Students must demonstrate that they know the content and are able to apply it at a high level of expectation, which is typically far more demanding than simply attending a class, completing a set of assignments, and passing midterm and final examinations.

In order to create a rich, robust set of competencies within each program, it is essential to start with standards that have been adopted by state, national, and professional entities within each discipline. For example, when considering standards for an educator preparation program one would certainly want to include the Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium (InTASC) standards, the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), state-specific standards, and the Specialized Professional Association (SPA) standards specific to each program area such as National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), and so on. These standards should not only inform the curriculum; they should steer it.

Once the standards have been chosen for a given program, a cohesive set of competencies is then created. It is very important to carefully examine the competencies from both a macro and a micro perspective, with an emphasis on not only covering the competencies, but on the scaffolding of key concepts and principles throughout the program.

Once the competencies are developed, specific learning objectives are constructed, and from those learning objectives, assessments are created that measure students' proficiency against a pre-determined level of mastery. These competencies, learning objectives, and assessments can then be grouped within specific courses of study and assigned credit hours or competency units based on established algorithms. Competencies, learning objectives, and assessments should be faculty-driven, but should also represent a collaboration with external subject matter experts, instructional designers, educational partners, and other stakeholders as appropriate.

When a complete set of competencies, learning objectives, and assessments has been drafted, representatives within an academic program of study should be able to answer the question: What do we want our graduates to know and be able to do? It is important to note, however, that the answer to this question can and actually should change over time as industry standards and professional expectations evolve. In the case of educator preparation, for example, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), which is the nation's premiere accrediting body within that field, recently updated the standards by which program quality is measured. As a result, the competencies, learning objectives, and assessments within educator preparation programs must reflect those changes.

Learning must be constructed both horizontally and vertically in order for students to demonstrate a significant level of understanding relative to key concepts and skills. Critical thought, analysis, reflection, and articulation of response are essential elements of powerful learning, and they are all cornerstones of a curriculum built upon CBE principles. Likewise, a progression of difficulty is evident in CBE curriculum, whereby key concepts, principles, and skill sets are introduced and reinforced at specific intervals. The developmental design of a CBE curriculum provides students with multiple opportunities to learn, practice, and demonstrate their proficiency.

Because competency-based education emphasizes learning over seat time, students are able to progress at their own pace; their learning is not restricted by having to wait on others within a class or a cohort. Thus, prior knowledge or experience can help a student accelerate his or her progress within a course of study. Likewise, extra time can be taken to learn new content and skills. The self-paced learning paradigm is often a challenge for institutions new to the CBE model, given the traditional course-based system where all students progress through content at the same pace.

Self-paced learning can certainly be implemented in a traditional “brick and mortar” school, but an online learning environment is quite conducive to CBE. As long as an institution understands the technological, faculty, and staff resources required to facilitate meaningful educational experiences for its students, online delivery systems can be an optimal choice.

These are questions that can be answered with accuracy and confidence if high-quality assessments are in place within a given program. It is essential to measure student learning in different ways—ways that are appropriate for the given learning objectives and competencies. This can often be accomplished by carefully designed comprehensive objective examinations, through performance-based assessments, through field experience or clinical evaluations, and through standardized content examinations required for professional licensure. The creation of high-quality assessments requires the content knowledge of faculty members and external subject matter experts, but it also requires the expertise of those trained in assessment design. It is important to ensure that assessments are valid (measure what they are intended to measure) and reliable (yield the same results over time). All assessments should be thoroughly vetted and piloted before they are launched, and there must be an assurance of both content validity and interrater reliability. Interrater reliability may not a common practice with all higher education institutions, but it quite important for a couple of reasons. First, it ensures greater consistency amongst evaluators (or faculty) when assessing student work; this is extremely important in a competency-based model when work may be revised and resubmitted more than once and graded by different faculty members. Second, establishing attributes of high-quality assessments such as validity and reliability (including interrater reliability) allows institutional staff to make interpretations about data with greater confidence. While it is ideal to have psychometricians on staff this is not always possible, particularly in smaller institutions. In those instances, it would be desirable to secure the short-term services of an assessment consultant to review, analyze, and offer feedback regarding new assessments.

From matriculation through graduation, student learning in a competency-based educational model is measured through a series of formative and summative assessments and a triangulation of data is necessary to look for patterns and trends. Honest, critical reviews of those data are necessary so that strengths and weaknesses can be identified within each program and across the department as a whole. Decisions impacting programs should always be data-driven. One way to do this is to create a data review periodicity protocol whereby a formal review plan facilitates the analysis of data. This periodic review, which should take place at least annually, can reveal specific needs on a micro level but when examined holistically can communicate the overall strength of a program. Examples can include student performance on key assessments required within each program; general education exams; content exams required for professional licensure; employer surveys; graduate satisfaction surveys; feedback from educational and workforce partners; and other sources.

A close examination of the standard's verbiage suggests that this national accrediting body intends to measure the efficacy and thus the competency of each higher education institution. Meeting this standard will be challenging for all institutions, regardless whether they follow a traditional model or a competency-based educational model, but it is a challenge worth accepting across the educational community in its collective commitment to effect positive change.

This is an important time in our nation's educational system. Higher education institutions are at a crossroads and must reevaluate the effectiveness of paradigms they have implemented for decades. Do those approaches remain appropriate for today's student body? Is there a better way to facilitate more powerful teaching and learning for all? What opportunities are there for innovation while remaining true to an institution's mission? And, how can the competency-based educational model continue to be refined and improved so that more institutions will be able to recognize its benefits and weave it into their own programs? Questions such as these are necessary for promoting conversation, reflection, and research so that in time all students will enjoy educational experiences that are deep, meaningful, robust, and encourage lifelong learning.