Supporting Student Attainment and Management of Competencies in a Transdisciplinary Degree Program

In Fall 2014, a large Midwestern land-grant research university piloted a competency-based model as the foundation for an undergraduate transdisciplinary program focusing on connecting engineering and technology with humanities and social sciences. Students enrolled in this program progress through a set of competencies that require them to master cross-disciplinary and cross-functional skills needed to be successful in a 21 century workplace. Now in its second year, the competency-based program has undergone significant changes that include a more substantial definition of competencies at each of the three levels of competence (developing, emerging, and proficient), scaffolding needed to support students on their path towards gaining competencies, and significant mentoring by faculty, TAs, and professional advisers to support competency attainment. In this paper, we will share challenges and discoveries made by the faculty throughout the first two years of the novel Competency-Based Education (CBE) experience, including a reflection on how such experiences impacted modifications of the CBE model from Year 1 to Year 2, the ways in which the program supported individual attainment and management of competencies by students, and the value of the mentorship program in supporting student-driven learning paths. We will also share insights into students’ perceptions of the benefits, challenges, and frustrations of being part of this pilot program based on interview and survey data provided by the 33 members of the initial cohort. This overview of the ways this program supported students in attaining competencies through coursework, individual mentoring, and scaffolding may be instructive as institutions seek to bring CBE to scale and increase holistic student learning for the 21 century. Introduction There is growing interest in Competency-Based Education (CBE), with approximately 600 institutions of higher education offering or currently designing competency-based programs. CBE shifts learners’ focus from credit hours and seat-time to what each learner knows and can do, increasing the connectivity between school and future jobs. Instructional time is focused on content mastery, rather than attainment of credit hours, and has been previously linked to higher standards for student learning. Background / Literature Review While CBE has been in the spotlight in the recent years, it is not a new instructional paradigm. First introduced by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching in 1906, it was popularized in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s in response to the National Defense Education Act, and later adopted during the performance-based vocational teacher education movement. Over time, CBE has moved from a goal-oriented behavioristic approach to a characteristically holistic approach that requires the integration of knowledge, skills, and attitudes. CBE returned as a model for higher education several decades after popularity of this approach had waned, particularly in engineering and technology domains. This can in part be explained by the growing gap between the academic curriculum and the needs of the labor market. With the rise of globalization and rapid development of technology, engineering and technology students must constantly update their knowledge and skills once they are on the job to ensure that they remain competitive. A competency-based educational experience “derives a 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”. The broad definition offers much freedom as to how the CBE models are employed or even named. For example, some institutions refer to them as assessment or concept-based programs, or personalized learning. While there is variation among these approaches in terms of scope, intentions, or theoretical framework, the overarching agreement is that skills, abilities, and behaviors acquired should be measurable and attainment of milestones is skill-based (as opposed to time-based used in traditional programs). CBE programs aim to increase the ability of students to succeed in their professional lives, encouraging students to develop patterns of knowledge acquisition and knowledge application, making students lifelong learners. Similarly, there is a misalignment in the use of “competence” and “competency” when describing approaches. The main distinction between the two terms is that “competence” implies the demonstration (or process) of knowledge, skills, and attitudes, whereas “competency” suggests the description of such knowledge, skills, and attitudes. There is no unified agreement as to how to approach competencies as part of a pedagogical model. An argument in research literature is ongoing as to whether it is necessary to completely overhaul programs and knowledge and skills taught to allow for the identification and mapping of competencies that may be valuable in today’s workplace, or whether educators should carefully synchronize competencies based on their purpose and context, while paying particular attention to the dimensions of competence (e.g., hybrid and context-dependent professional dimensions) and elements of competence (e.g., theoretical foundation, analytical elements applicable across competencies). Currently, two models dominate the approaches for implementing CBE in the United States: 1) a competency framework applied within an existing course based model, and 2) competency frameworks that drive curricular redesign. Schools that chose to follow the course-based model include Rio Salado College, Brandman University, and Marylhurst University. These programs also use traditional credit models, where students fulfill graduation requirements by earning a set number of credit hours. In a full, program-level competency framework, graduation requirements are met by fulfilling competencies rather than specific courses or credit hours. There are numerous potential advantages of utilizing CBE as a model for higher education programs that could be grouped as follows: • Learning processes • Student-centered or student-led learning: while students work with mentors to outline their individual academic paths, they are ultimately responsible for the selection of and adherence to a learning path. • Personalization of education: students are able to focus on competencies that would help them differentiate themselves in a competitive labor market. • Validation of extracurricular and/or prior learning and experiences: learning is not constrained to that being acquired within a traditional classroom environment. • Clear expectations and relevance of work to the ultimate academic goal: competency maps create cohesive and transparent program sequencing that allow students to have a clear view of the direction and requirements for their learning. • Program design and implementation • Measurability and quality: competency maps and clear competency descriptions allow for clear assessment of student achievement and outcomes. • Transparency: faculty commitment to regularly informing students about requirements and continuous program improvement as a joint effort, particularly, since explicit agreement should be reached in terms of competency achievement. • Accountability: engagement of industry experts and outside evaluators to ensure the relevance of skills and knowledge taught. • Improved metrics: the level of benchmarking granularity to ensure performance and competency achievement at each level. • Affordable education: elimination of redundancies across domains, embedded assessment, and validation of external learning enable a reduction in the financial burden on students and their families. • Flexible curriculum: a shift towards demand-driven education allows the faculty to focus on being facilitators of learning. • Mentoring and coaching: flexible curricula allow faculty to work with individual students and develop stronger learning domain and soft skills than may be possible within a traditional educational model. • Student learning and professional outcomes • Clear and verifiable descriptions of students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities: unlike a traditional transcript that does not show outcomes for classes, only competencies acquired by students are reflected. • Lifelong learning skills: the ability to curate learning paths throughout their academic career help students develop skills for ongoing learning. There are challenges in the adoption of CBE. The lack of a unified model allows institutions to tailor the CBE framework to their individual needs. At the same time, this ambiguity requires faculty and program designers to start from point zero, thus resulting in obstacles to CBE adoption within the institution. In this paper, we will describe the path we have taken, challenges met, and lessons learned when designing a competency-based transdisciplinary undergraduate program. Program Background The Transdisciplinary Studies in Technology (TST) program was initiated in Fall 2013 at a large Midwestern university with a call for interest among faculty of the home college (Technology), which was supplemented a few weeks later with a broader call for interest by faculty across campus. A letter of interest and interview were expected from all interested faculty. With an initial cohort of faculty identified, a series of 10 weekly meetings on change philosophy and practice took place during the first semester. By Spring 2014, a team of 15 multi-disciplinary faculty solidified their role as part of the Educational Research & Development Incubator. These faculty fellows are drawn from schools and departments around campus including education, communications, English, technology, theater, and the libraries. Since the early stages of the initiative, faculty fellows have been involved in establishing the administrative framewor