Measuring Real Learning
Student competency – not institutional convenience
Robin Capehart
Sep. 30
Seat time can’t determine competency
No matter what topic you are teaching in a college class – be it accounting, history or algebra – everything you need to know can be taught and learned in three hours a week for fifteen weeks. Think about it. Isn’t that amazing?
I jest. But, this is the predominant system we use in most of higher education to teach courses and determine competency. This traditional “seat time” approach to higher education is based on the Carnegie Unit, a system which equates a certain amount of time spent in the classroom with a specific amount of learning. This system has been the standard for awarding college credits and degrees for over a century (Shedd, 2003).
In recent years, this system has been increasingly criticized for its inability to accurately measure student competency and ensure the development of essential cognitive and communication skills. Consequently, this approach has led to skepticism regarding the value of a college degree in terms of preparing graduates for the workforce and life beyond academia.
Research has shown that the amount of time spent in the classroom does not necessarily correlate with the acquisition of knowledge and skills. A study by Arum and Roksa (2011) found that 45% of students showed no significant improvement in critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing skills after two years of college. Additionally, a survey by the Association of American Colleges and Universities (2015) revealed that only 23% of employers believe that recent college graduates are well-prepared in the areas of critical thinking and problem-solving.
The most significant fallacy is that the system assumes that all students have the exact same ability to learn. This premise leads to the questionable notion that all courses, regardless of their subject matter or complexity, can be effectively taught and learned in the same amount of time (e.g., 3 hours per week for 15 weeks).
In fact, different subjects and skills require different amounts of time and effort to master. For example, a study by Bain (2004) found that students in an introductory physics course required an average of 3.5 hours of study time per week for each credit hour, while those in an introductory history course required only 2.3 hours per credit hour.
Moreover, the focus on seat time and credit hours has led to a prioritization of credentials over competence. Many students are more concerned with getting credit for the class and earning a degree than with acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary for success in their chosen field (Keeling & Hersh, 2011). This has contributed to a growing skills gap between college graduates and the needs of the workforce.
So why does higher education stick with such a flawed system? Clearly, it doesn’t accurately determine learning and preparedness – two objectives that most people believe is the purpose of education. The answer probably reflects an ongoing epidemic of resistance to change. The system is useful – not for students or potential employers – but the college. It’s familiar. The math is easy. So, why change?
Well, it’s really not an issue of change. It’s a matter of returning to a classical system of higher education.
Achieving real competency
In light of these findings, there is a need for a shift in higher education toward a more competency-based approach that focuses on the acquisition and demonstration of knowledge and skills, rather than the accumulation of credit hours (Johnstone & Soares, 2014). This approach would allow for greater flexibility in the time and manner in which students learn, while ensuring that they have mastered the necessary competencies for success in their chosen field.
The shift towards a competency-based approach in higher education is not a new concept; rather, it is a return to the classical model of education that emphasized the mastery of knowledge and skills under the guidance of a scholar. In the classical model, students were required to demonstrate their competence to their mentors before they were allowed to graduate and enter the workforce (Ong, 2004).
The classical approach to education can be traced back to ancient Greece, where students studied under the tutelage of philosophers and scholars such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle (Kimball, 1986). In this model, students engaged in dialogue, debate, and critical thinking to develop their understanding of complex ideas and concepts. The emphasis was on the acquisition of knowledge and the development of intellectual skills, rather than the accumulation of credit hours.
The medieval European universities, which emerged in the 11th and 12th centuries, also followed a competency-based model. Students were required to demonstrate their mastery of a subject through oral examinations and public disputations before they were awarded degrees (Pedersen, 1997). The focus was on the ability to apply knowledge and engage in scholarly discourse.
In contrast, the modern credit hour system, based on the Carnegie Unit, has shifted the focus away from competency and towards the accumulation of time spent in the classroom and performing at an average or even below average level. This approach has been criticized for its inability to ensure that students have actually acquired the knowledge and skills necessary for success in their chosen fields (Keeling & Hersh, 2011).
Research has shown that a competency-based approach can lead to better student outcomes. A study by the Council for Adult and Experiential Learning (2012) found that students in competency-based programs had higher rates of degree completion and job placement compared to those in traditional programs. Additionally, a survey by the Lumina Foundation (2014) found that employers valued the skills and competencies acquired through competency-based programs more highly than traditional degrees.
By returning to a competency-based model, higher education can better prepare students for the demands of the 21st-century workforce. This approach allows for greater flexibility in the time and manner in which students learn, while ensuring that they have mastered the necessary knowledge and skills for success in their chosen fields (Johnstone & Soares, 2014).
The challenges
The transition from the traditional Carnegie system to a competency-based model in higher education is hindered by the deeply entrenched academic establishment, which includes accreditors, government financial aid, and the traditional college structure. These entities are aligned with the credit hour system, making it challenging to implement widespread changes towards a competency-based approach (Laitinen, 2012).
Accreditation agencies, which are responsible for ensuring the quality and integrity of higher education programs, have long relied on the credit hour as a measure of academic progress. Many accreditors are hesitant to embrace competency-based education, as it requires a significant shift in how they evaluate and approve programs (Bergeron, 2013). This reluctance can make it difficult for institutions to gain accreditation for competency-based programs, limiting their ability to offer these programs to students.
Government financial aid policies are also tied to the credit hour system. Federal student aid, such as Pell Grants and student loans, is awarded based on the number of credit hours a student is enrolled in (Kelchen, 2015). This creates a barrier for students in competency-based programs, as these programs often do not rely on credit hours. As a result, students may have difficulty accessing the financial aid they need to pursue competency-based education.
The traditional college structure, with its emphasis on credit hours, semesters, and seat time, is another obstacle to the adoption of competency-based education. Many institutions are resistant to change, as it requires a significant overhaul of their existing systems and processes (Johnstone & Soares, 2014). Faculty may also be hesitant to embrace competency-based education, as it requires a shift in their teaching methods and assessment practices.
Despite these challenges, there is growing recognition of the need for change in higher education. A report by the New America Foundation (2013) called for a redesign of the federal financial aid system to better support competency-based education. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance to accreditors on how to evaluate and approve competency-based programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2013).
Some institutions have already begun to implement competency-based programs, demonstrating that it is possible to overcome the barriers posed by the academic establishment. Western Governors University, for example, has been offering competency-based degrees since 1997 and has graduated over 150,000 students (Western Governors University, 2021). Other institutions, such as Southern New Hampshire University and the University of Wisconsin System, have also launched successful competency-based programs (Fain, 2019).
To facilitate the transition to competency-based education, changes must be made at the systemic level. Accreditors need to adapt their evaluation criteria to accommodate competency-based programs, government financial aid policies must be updated to support students in these programs, and traditional colleges must be willing to embrace new models of education. Only by addressing these challenges can higher education truly shift towards a competency-based approach that better prepares students for success in the 21st-century workforce.
https://substack.com/@robincapehart/p-149008852
References:
Arum, R., & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on college campuses. University of Chicago Press.
Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2015). Falling short? College learning and career success. https://www.aacu.org/sites/default/files/files/LEAP/2015employerstudentsurvey.pdf
Bain, K. (2004). What the best college teachers do. Harvard University Press.
Bergeron, D. A. (2013). A path forward: Game-changing reforms in higher education and the implications for business and financing models. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/PathForward-1.pdf
Council for Adult and Experiential Learning. (2012). Competency-based degree programs in the U.S.: Postsecondary credentials for measurable student learning and performance. https://www.cael.org/cbe-publications
Fain, P. (2019, January 28). Competency-based education continues to spread. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/28/competency-based-education-continues-spread
Johnstone, S. M., & Soares, L. (2014). Principles for developing competency-based education programs. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 46(2), 12-19.
Keeling, R. P., & Hersh, R. H. (2011). We’re losing our minds: Rethinking American higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Kelchen, R. (2015). The landscape of competency-based education: Enrollments, demographics, and affordability. American Enterprise Institute. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Landscape-of-CBE.pdf
Kimball, B. A. (1986). Orators and philosophers: A history of the idea of liberal education. Teachers College Press.
Laitinen, A. (2012). Cracking the credit hour. New America Foundation. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/cracking-the-credit-hour/
Lumina Foundation. (2014). The degree qualifications profile: A learning-centered framework for what college graduates should know and be able to do to earn the associate, bachelor’s or master’s degree. https://www.luminafoundation.org/files/resources/dqp.pdf
New America Foundation. (2013). Cracking the credit hour. https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/cracking-the-credit-hour/
Ong, W. J. (2004). Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue: From the art of discourse to the art of reason. University of Chicago Press.
Pedersen, O. (1997). The first universities: Studium generale and the origins of university education in Europe. Cambridge University Press.
Shedd, J. M. (2003). The history of the student credit hour. New Directions for Higher Education, 2003(122), 5-12.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Applying for Title IV eligibility for direct assessment (competency-based) programs. https://ifap.ed.gov/dear-colleague-letters/03-19-2013-gen-13-10-subject-applying-title-iv-eligibility-direct-assessment
Western Governors University. (2021). About WGU. https://www.wgu.edu/about/our-story.html