| 来源类型 | Report |
| 规范类型 | 报告 |
| Innovate and evaluate: Expanding the research base for competency-based education | |
| Andrew P. Kelly; Rooney Columbus | |
| 发表日期 | 2016-06-16 |
| 出版年 | 2016 |
| 语种 | 英语 |
| 摘要 | Key Points Competency-based education (CBE) awards academic credit based on what students can prove they have learned rather than the amount of time spent in class. The model has received substantial attention from higher education leaders and policymakers, yet we still cannot answer many basic questions: Who enrolls in CBE programs? How much do they cost? How do their student outcomes compare with other, more traditional programs? This paper examines over 380 journal articles on CBE from the Institute of Education Sciences’ Education Resources Information Center database, finding that most studies use a qualitative rather than quantitative methodology and focus on questions of design and best practices rather than evaluation. Quantitative research exploring student characteristics or student outcomes was less common; studies comparing student outcomes in CBE with traditional postsecondary programs were rare. Given the interest in and activity surrounding CBE, there is a significant opportunity to build on this evidence base. Researchers should partner with CBE providers to study important questions that can inform decision making by policymakers and institutional leaders. Executive Summary Competency-based education (CBE) has garnered significant attention lately from reformers and policymakers. Put simply, CBE awards credit based on what students have learned rather than how much time they spend in class. Competency-based programs identify specific competencies, develop assessments to measure mastery of those competencies, and then award credit or other credentials to those students who meet or exceed benchmarks on those assessments. CBE programs give students flexibility to move at their own pace, which could potentially shorten the time to degree and enhance affordability. CBE credentials may also more clearly signal to employers students’ knowledge and career preparedness. Clearly, the benefits of expanding access to CBE could be substantial. But what does existing research suggest about the likely effect of reforms to promote CBE? In this paper, we analyze 380 studies of postsecondary CBE and prior-learning assessment listed in the Department of Education’s Education Resources Information Center database. We reviewed each study’s methodology (i.e., quantitative or qualitative) and topic (i.e., program design, student characteristics, student outcomes, and policy environment). We found that existing research leaves important questions unanswered. What types of students enroll in CBE? How do students fare in CBE programs, and do particular groups do better than others? Are CBE graduates more attractive to potential employers? Our analysis uncovered more than twice as many qualitative studies (228 articles) as quantitative ones (102). The studies in our sample tended to focus on questions of design and practice, describing the manner in which providers have identified competencies, developed assessments, and structured courses and programs. Far fewer articles explored data on questions about who actually enrolls in CBE and how students fare in terms of learning, completion, and labor market success. A substantial number of studies (56) examined assessment in CBE, including questions about the design, results, and validity of different assessment techniques. We also looked at the relationship between methodology and content. We found that qualitative studies typically described program design (113) or prescribed best practices for program design (97). Quantitative studies examined program design (47) and student outcomes (42). However, the research on outcomes was limited. Many of these studies looked at students’ self-assessments of their own competencies after a competency-based course or program. Few examined outcomes such as retention, graduation, or job-placement rates. Only a handful looked at CBE in comparison to a counterfactual; just 13 compared CBE outcomes to those from traditional programs. The paper concludes with some recommendations for future research. We suggest that researchers should use the ongoing expansion of CBE programs as an opportunity to launch a research and development agenda. Specifically, we suggest that researchers work with CBE providers to answer the following basic questions: How do the demographics of students who enroll in CBE compare to those enrolled in traditional programs? What do success rates in CBE programs look like, especially relative to comparable programs? Do students who earn credit via prior-learning assessment perform comparably in subsequent coursework? How do employers view CBE graduates? Do they see CBE credentials as being more informative than traditional degrees? We sketch out the role that policymakers, philanthropists, and other parties should play in facilitating the rigorous evaluation of CBE programs. Introduction Higher education is under increasing pressure to change. The combination of soaring costs, stagnant completion rates, and an uncertain labor market for recent college graduates has given rise to a sustained push for innovation, both at existing colleges and via new postsecondary providers. In the ensuing national debate, few ideas have received more attention than competency-based education (CBE), which has been around for decades but has reemerged as a favorite innovation of reformers and policymakers. Simply put, competency-based models award credit based on what students can prove they have learned rather than how much time they spend in class. CBE programs identify specific competencies, develop assessments to measure student mastery of those competencies, and then award academic credit to students who meet or exceed benchmarks on those assessments. The model’s appeal derives largely from its potential to overcome some of the pressing challenges facing higher education. First, it could enhance college affordability by allowing students to progress through a degree program at their own pace, potentially decreasing the time it takes some students to earn a credential.[1] Second, CBE could help boost college completion, as it enables prospective students to obtain credit for prior learning—skills and knowledge learned on the job, in the military, and so on—thereby reducing the number of credits needed to graduate.[2] Third, a credential from a CBE program may better signal what a student knows and is able to do than a traditional college transcript. Because competencies are clearly identified and credit is awarded based on mastery, employers could more accurately distinguish the students who have the skills and knowledge they need.[3] Lastly, a focus on transparent measures of student learning instead of time could help move us toward a market in which schools compete on the quality of the education they provide rather than the students they enroll or the amenities they offer.[4] The potential to improve these dimensions is reason enough to experiment with CBE models. Luckily, a growing number of institutions are doing so already. And policymakers at the federal and state level have worked to create space for such models, inviting providers into state systems and waiving existing regulations for a subset of programs so as to study their outcomes. Indiana, for instance, welcomed CBE provider Western Governors University (WGU) as an official state institution in 2010, which allowed Indiana students to enroll using state financial aid.[5] Other states have incorporated WGU into their systems too, including Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington.[6] At the federal level, a 2014 bill passed unanimously in the House of Representatives setting up “demonstration projects” for several CBE providers, waiving federal aid requirements such as the credit hour.[7] What does existing research suggest about the likely effect of expanding CBE on access, affordability, and attainment? Who enrolls in CBE programs? Who completes them, how do they fare after graduation, and how do their outcomes compare to similarly qualified peers? To shed some light on the stock of CBE research—with an eye toward nudging researchers and institutions to adopt a proactive research agenda—we analyzed studies listed in the Department of Education’s Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) database. We limited our analysis to those that focused on CBE at the postsecondary level and were published between 1996 and 2015. We find that existing research leaves many of these basic questions unanswered. In short, researchers have not conducted the kinds of rigorous empirical evaluations of CBE that, in a perfect world, leaders and policymakers could draw on in creating effective policies. The majority of CBE studies in the ERIC database employ a qualitative methodology, while quantitative studies are less common. Only a small portion of the studies reviewed relevant literature. There are more than two times as many qualitative articles as quantitative articles. Most studies in the database focus on questions of program design and institutional practice, describing the process through which institutions have identified competencies, created assessments, and developed programs before making recommendations about best practices. Fewer articles have explored empirical questions as to who actually enrolls in CBE and what program outcomes such as learning, completion, and labor market success look like. Some of this gap reflects the newness of the latest round of experimentation; dozens of programs have only recently emerged, and research on them is just getting underway. This flurry of experimentation represents a key opportunity to engage in the kind of research and development necessary to inform policy and institutional decision making. We conclude the paper with some recommendations for such an agenda, as well as advice to different stakeholders who can help develop it. The rest of this paper proceeds as follows. First, we describe the process by which we identified and coded studies in the ERIC database. We then explore the findings, looking first at methodology (quantitative versus qualitative) and then at content (what the studies focused on). We conclude with some suggestions for future research and the role that policymakers and other parties might play in facilitating that research agenda. Read the full report. Notes |
| 主题 | Higher Education |
| 标签 | Center on Higher Education Reform ; competency-based education ; education ; Higher education |
| URL | https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/innovate-and-evaluate-expanding-the-research-base-for-competency-based-education/ |
| 来源智库 | American Enterprise Institute (United States) |
| 资源类型 | 智库出版物 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.153/handle/2XGU8XDN/206259 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Andrew P. Kelly,Rooney Columbus. Innovate and evaluate: Expanding the research base for competency-based education. 2016. |
| 条目包含的文件 | ||||||
| 文件名称/大小 | 资源类型 | 版本类型 | 开放类型 | 使用许可 | ||
| Innovate-and-Evaluat（1059KB） | 智库出版物 | 限制开放 | CC BY-NC-SA | 浏览 | ||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
