Competency-Based Curriculum Development - Research Paper Example

Analyzing Competency Based Curriculum Development Introduction This paper is a critical analysis of the following ment: “...competency based curriculum is significant in today’s policy climate because it provides an infrastructure for determining how and by whom educational goals and standards will be set. ...However, in the shadow of this elaborate infrastructure of reform a host of questions remain unexamined (Jackson, 1994, p. 144).” What is competency based education? Why is a competency based curriculum significant in today’s policy climate of reform? How does it provide an infrastructure for determining how and by whom educational goals and standards will be set and why is it an elaborate infrastructure of reform? What host of questions remains unexamined?” The paper includes recommendations on curriculum trends likely to remain prominent for managing the interests of state and federal governments, the needs of individual students, the academic freedom of teachers, and the requirements of employers and the community. Competency based controversy: training or education? Jackson’s statement is part of a debate on competency based education and training (CBET) that has gone on for decades despite wide acceptance in a growing number of developed and developing countries. Stevenson and Brown (1994) state that the main point of contention is the answer to the following question: what is the purpose of education? The varied answers explain why educators and policymakers are divided into three camps: those who see CBET as a pariah, as a panacea, or as neither of the two (Bowden, 1998). Hager (1994, cited in Jones, 1999, p. 156) traces these debates to the longstanding dispute on “vocational versus general education” and to the main issue of whether and to what extent vocationalism should drive education (Kerka, 1998). CBET started out as a system of vocational instruction in U.S. factories early in the last century. Having experienced its effectiveness, U.S. policymakers applied competency based methods to teacher training in the late 1960s and used it a decade later to reform the curricula in other professions (Bowden, 1998). Its relative success helped it spread to other countries, notably the U.K., Australia, and New Zealand in the 1980s (Herschbach, 1991, p.3). CBET curriculum and its significance The evolution from competency based training (CBT) to CBET is evident in the design of a competency based curriculum that, like an evolving living creature, reflects the “genetic code” of its conceptual ancestors. Not only does the competency based curriculum of, say, a course in medicine adopt key principles from CBT, but the competency based curriculum of, say, a vocational training course in metalworking contains key points from the general education curriculum. The end result is a curriculum that educates skilled workers ‘to think’ and trains educated professionals ‘to be practical’ (Gonczi, Hager & Oliver, 1990 and Masters & McCurry, 1990 cited in Jennings, 1991, p. 3). A competency based curriculum is marked by efficiency: with clear measurable objectives determined by competency patterns, lessons delivered following an ordered sequence of instruction related to the objectives through the use of highly organized instructional systems, and performance measured by assessing outcomes specified in the objectives (Bowden, 1998; Molnar and Zahorik, 1977 cited in Herschbach, 1991, p. 2). The competency based curriculum, therefore, hinges on two key definitions: competence and assessment (Jones, 1999, p.147). Who defines and assesses competence is what brings the debate deep into the political arena. An elaborate infrastructure for reform The wide acceptance of the competency based curriculum relies on a structured system of formulation and implementation. As Bowden (1998, citing Humphrey 1992, p. 61) points out, competency based curriculum standards are determined by the needs of employment and not merely on doubtful assumptions about workplace needs. The employment system – business and industry –defines the notion of competence that goes into the curriculum. Employers establish and supervise the method of performance evaluation – competency assessment – through the use of skills standards and qualifications developed via government-mandated bodies consisting of employers, professionals, and trade unionists presumed to be competent in deciding whether persons are educated or trained well enough to be employable. Competence is determined by employability, rather than mastery of knowledge and maturity of thinking, giving a definite utilitarian answer to the question of the purpose of education. But should employability be the purpose of education? In the 1990s, as nations geared their educational systems to produce what Reich (1991) called the global workforce, competency based education and training became the template for widespread educational, labor, and work reforms, with competence leading to employment as the objective, and assessment by employers as the gauge of success (Gerber & Lankshear 2000). The 1980s decline in competitiveness of some developed (and the continued poverty of developing) countries was attributed to the declining quality of the workforce (Smith, 1998, p.143). Greater attention was given to system-wide reforms in employment and training policies, not because there was evidence linking better training systems as the answer, but because there was thought to be no harm in having a skilled workforce to promote economic productivity (Kriesler, 1999). Competency based education may therefore have been adopted as part of a political solution to a problem (poor quality of workers) that never existed, and in the absence of proof that doing so would be harmful. Many countries began using competency based education as the reason to legitimize the reform of their educational and labor systems with the cooperation of trade unions, employer’s federations, schools, and government bodies (Timmermann, 1993). As Kerka (1998) explains, this is why “Jackson (1994) asserts that the debate should not be about the merits of CBET as an educational method because it is actually a policy approach. The competency standards movement…is closely tied to political initiatives for global competitiveness…(Chappell 1996; Jackson 1994).” A host of unanswered questions Bowden (1998, p.1) acknowledged that the debates are driven by “economic and social theories that form the political debates that continue to threaten and overwhelm the pedagogical questions.” In another paper, he concludes that “neither of the polarized perspectives… was tenable and that it was inappropriate either to reject outright all ideas associated with the competency movement or to embrace any particular competency based approach without question (Bowden and Masters, 1993).” He is hopeful that if the protagonists focus on the learning aspects, a curriculum containing the merits of all sides can be developed. Jones (1999, p. 146) addresses several questions on both sides of the debate, including “Is CBE immoral (citing Bull, 1985; Usher & Edwards, 1994)?” and “Is general/liberal education more valuable than vocational education (citing Lewis, 1991; Hager, 1996)?” There are no easy answers to our original questions: What is the purpose of education? Is it employability? And now, with unemployment rates rising and the threat of global recession dangling over the heads of policy-makers, CBET may be a convenient excuse to appease the mind, but it may not be a lasting solution. They can claim that the system is turning out competent workers (Smith & Keating, 2003, p.179), but if the economic situation and the drive for global competition (creating pressures to reduce costs) makes employers lay off workers even if they are competent, what will happen then? Won’t we have an oversupply of competent workers who cannot be employed? Does our education system prepare people for jobs that do not exist or, at least, prepare them to create new jobs? Another question being asked in Australia and the United Kingdom has something to do with the creation of a potential underclass of workers that employers find lacking in competence (Gibb, 2002, p. 258) and are, therefore, unemployable. Who will train these workers, and what assurance can be given that they can find jobs in a shrinking job market? The final question relates to the fact that some competencies may not be measurable, either because they are difficult to put into words; for example, how to make polenta (Mulcahy, 1996 as cited in Jones 199, 148) or because it is impossible to know and predict future competency needs (Grant et al., 2004, p. 6 and Bowden, 1998, p. 7). Future curriculum development trends The debates on CBET, seen as an answer to the decline in competitiveness of nations even though the reasoning may have been flawed as seen above, have done some good in that it became more flexible, less biased towards either competence and performance alone or on purely academic subjects, leading to the inclusion of general education subjects in training courses and competence based objectives in academic and professional courses (Herschbach 1991, p.8). This opens up future improvements in education and training in the light of the several unanswered questions we have seen. Bowden (1998, p. 5) suggests combining the merits of competency based and academic forms of education taking into account the various stakeholders, not only the employers, but to include students, their parents, teachers, and the community. He also proposed (1998, p.14) adapting Marton’s (1997) Contextual Variation theory to “prepare people for a varying future by exposing them to a varying past”, including in the curriculum several exercises that would expose students to novel situations so they learn to think of possible solutions. Herschbach (1991, p.9) advocates defining competencies in broader terms to include problem solving and critical thinking. Jennings (1991) sees the need “to approach curriculum development from a multi-dimensional viewpoint to include knowledge, attitudes, (and not only) skills…incorporating both the analyzed functions of the occupation as well as the processes involved in tying together those competencies (p. 6).” Armstrong (1994) advocates the use of Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences in curriculum development. Integrating information and communications technology in curriculum development, teachers training, and instructional materials development may help address the needs of employers, teachers and learners (UNESCO 2005) in a wired global economy. As Jones (1991) concludes in her paper, the “high level of controversy…represents more than academic disagreement… It is caused by a lack of dialogue between policy makers, researchers in the university sector and VET practitioners” and that the resolution lies in collecting “rich complex data and to subject it to profound and reflective analysis to develop models of practice that are philosophically and professionally sound. (p. 157).” In the search for good answers, there is no substitute for healthy dialogue. Reference List: Armstrong, T. (1994) Multiple intelligences: seven ways to approach curriculum. In Educational Leadership. [online] Available from: [November 21, 2005] Bowden, J. A. (1998) Competency-based education – neither a panacea nor a pariah. [online] Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology. Available from: [November 18, 2005]. Bowden, J. A. and Masters, G. N. (1993) Implications for higher education of a competency-based approach to education and training. Canberra: AGPS. Bull, H. (1985) The use of behavioral objectives – a moral issue? Journal of Further and Higher Education, 9. p. 74-80. Chappell, C. (1996) Quality & competency based education and training. In The Literacy Equation. Red Hill: Queensland Council for Adult Literacy, p. 71-79. Gerber, R. and Lankshear, C. (2000) Training for a smart workforce. London: Routledge. Gibb, S. (2002) Learning and development: processes, practices and perspectives. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gonczi, A., Hager, P. and Oliver, L. (1990) Establishing competency-based standards in the professions. National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition. Research Paper No.1. Canberra: AGPS. Grant, J., Fox, S., Kumar, N., Roff, S., Sim, E., and Simson, P. (2004) Standards for curriculum development: background paper. [online] PMETB. Available from: [November 18, 2005]. Hager, P. (1994) Is there a cogent philosophical argument against competency standards? Australia Journal of Education, 38, p. 3-18. Hager, P. (1996) What’s general about education and training. Unicorn, 22, p. 11-19. Herschbach, D. R. (1992) Technology and efficiency: competencies as content. Journal of Technology Education, 3 (2). [online] Available from: [November 19, 2005] Humphrey, S. (1992) A national skills recognition system–setting standards and establishing credentials. In Education in the 1990s: Competencies, Credentialism, Competitiveness? Canberra: AGPS Jackson, N. (1994) If competence is the answer, what is the question? In A Collection of Original Essays on Curriculum for the Workplace, pp. 135-149. Geelong: Deakin University. (ED 384 695). Jennings, L. (1991) A critical analysis of the competency based approach in education and training. Paper Delivered at the National AARE Conference. Queensland. Jones, A. (1999) The place of judgment in competency-based assessment. Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 51, 1, p.145-160. Kerka, S. (1998) Competency based education and training. Myths and realities. [online] ACVE Publications. Available from: [November 18, 2005] Kriesler, P.K, (1999) The Australian Economy. 3rd edition. Australia: Allen & Unwin. Lewis, T. (1991) Difficulties attending the new vocationalism in the USA. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 25, p. 95-108. Marton, F. (1997) Towards a theory of quality in higher education. In Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: From Theory to Practice. Eds. B. Dart and G. Boulton-Lewis. Melbourne: ACER. Masters, G. N. & McCurry, D. (1990) Competency-based assessment in the professions. National Office of Overseas Skills Recognition. Research Paper No.1. Canberra: AGPS. Molnar, A. & Zahorik, J.A. (1977) Curriculum theory. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mulcahy, M.D. (1996) Performing competencies: of training protocols and vocational education practice. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Vocational Education Research, 4, p. 35-67. Reich, R. (1991) The work of nations: preparing ourselves for 21st century capitalism. New York: Knopf. Smith, A. (1998) Training and Development in Australia. 2nd edition. Australia: Butterworths. Smith, E. & Keating, J. (2003) From Training Reform to Training Packages. Tuggerah: Social Science Press. Stevenson, J. and Brown, I (1994) Australian TAFE Assessment Practices: confusing relevance and responsiveness. Australian Journal of Education, 38, p. 118-138. Timmermann, Dieter. (1993) Costs and financing dual training in Germany: is there any lesson for other countries?” International Symposium on the Economics of Education, 18-21 May 1993 at the University of Manchester, UK. UNESCO (2005) Integrating ICTs into the Curriculum: Analytical Catalogue of Key Publications. Bangkok: UNESCO. Usher, R. and Edwards, R. (1994) Postmodernism and Education. New York: Routledge. Read More