CBE is disruptive, but . . .

I recently examined the competency-based education practices of eight American postsecondary instiutions. I sought to understand the degreee to which CBE has served as a disruptive innovation within our industry. My key finding would surprise absolutely no one . . . competency-based education is a disruptive innovation that has the potential to evolve and shape the postsecondary education industry. But I also found the state of the practice to be only minimally deployed, its characteristics to be surprisingly non-distinct, and its evaluation criteria and outcomes to be unclear.

Four questions guided my research. They were:

1. How have American higher education institutions deployed competency-based education practices?

2. What characteristics of competency-based education practices deployed by American higher education institutions are common or distinct?

3. What criteria have been used to evaluate competency-based education practices deployed by American higher education institutions?

4. What outcomes have been achieved by American higher education institutions that have deployed competency-based education practices?

An exploratory, qualitative review of publically available artifacts that described the competency-based approaches employed by eight American postsecondary institutions provided the primary data for my study. Collectively, this sample of institutions offered 110 competency-based degree and certificate programs and served more than 70,000 competency-based students. Prominent industry reports on competency-based education published from September 2014 through January 2016 were also examined.

I examined and worked with study data during two distinct data collection periods. A comprehensive initial collection and review of artifacts occurred April 2015 through June 2015. A second review of initial data and study artifacts was conducted October 2015 through January 2016.

Given the rapidly changing nature of the practice, it is important to note that findings were current and consistent with postsecondary competency-based education practices as of January 2016.

Competency-Based Education is Disruptive

Competency-based education is a disruptive innovation that has the potential to evolve and shape the postsecondary education industry. Specific aspects of the practice have been consistently employed in a manner that has allowed examined institutions to introduce “simplicity, convenience, accessibility, and affordability where complication and high cost are the status quo” (Christensen Institute, 2014). And the experiences and practices of examined instiutions have created new marketplace opportunities that have attracted tens of thousands of consumers who had been unserved or underserved by — or who simply prefer competency-based alternatives to — the industry’s mainstream offerings.

The overarching value proposition and the fundamental promise of competency-based education has appealed to these new education consumers and to those who had disengaged from, or were only loosely associated with, mainstream models. By leveraging their prior college or professional experience, competency-based students are able to accelerate their learning, a reality that offers both convenience and affordability as compared to mainstream alternatives. Where prior competencies are not present, examined institutions offer innovative ways to access learning materials and faculty or coaching support to help their students develop and demonstrate new competencies in a personalized and customized manner. These consumers have valued and seemingly prefer the ability to progress in a self-directed, efficient manner, independent of time or content engagement requirements typical of mainstream postsecondary education.

Christensen (1997) described the consistent characteristics of disruptive innovation as two fold. First, disruptive innovations have, by definition, no value in mainstream markets. Their defining attributes do not appeal to mainstream, high-end customers. However, their attributes, Christensen suggested, “become their strongest selling points in emerging markets” (1997, p. 190). Second, disruptive innovations “tend to be simpler, cheaper, and more reliable and convenient than established products” (1997, p. 190). When competition on convenience does not yield a clear market leader, Christensen suggested, consumers choose based on convenience and price. Disruptive innovations have competitive advantages on both fronts (1997).

The current state of the practice aligns directly with what Christensen observed to be disruptive about innovations that compete against non-consumption to exploit low-end or emerging consumer markets. The competency-based programs I examined are distinct in that they are more affordable and flexible than traditional postsecondary offerings. The programs are further differentiated in the higher education landscape given their emphasis on workforce relevant competencies and support models that promise to coach and guide learners through program requirements.Typical of disruptive innovations, they are competing on price and convenience while attracting tens of thousands to the approach.

Workforce Aligned but Minimally Deployed

The study’s findings also suggest that the practice of competency-based education has been deployed in only a minimal fashion among American postsecondary institutions. While hundreds of institutions are reportedly developing competency-based education strategies (Fain, 2015), less than 100 institutions from an industry that includes more than 4,500 colleges and universities currently offer active programs. And both program offerings and the total number of enrolled student among those that do offer competency-based education programs remain relatively small.

The institutions examined in the study collectively offered 110 online degree and certificate programs at the time of study. Areas of focus align with America’s largest industries (e.g., education, healthcare, information technology, business) and appear to align well with, and have implications for, the nation’s workforce realities and needs. Fifty-four percent of all examine programs offered are post-baccalaureate certificate or master’s degree programs, suggesting a commitment among examined providers to professional education and the aspirations of working adults who seek career advancement. And undergraduate offerings have implications for, and align with the substantial market of working adults who have some college but no degree.

The breadth and depth of competency-based subject matter may not be as diverse as the total number of programs offered suggests, however. This is because re-use of courses and assessments across programs is common. It appers typical, in fact, that 50% or more of a particular provider’s program is shared from a common base (e.g., a liberal arts and business base curricula), with variations creating specializations or areas of emphasis (e.g., in human resources, healthcare management, or supply chain management) that providers then elect to describe as unique program offerings.

Programs are also concentrated within a handful of providers. Capella University and WGU are, by far, the largest competency-based education program providers. Together, they were responsible for 83% of the 110 programs offered by the institutions examined here. The remaining 17% of programs were offered across six providers. At the time of this study, WGU offered the most competency-based education programs with a portfolio of 57 offerings, 42% of which were bachelor’s degree programs. Capella University offered 34 competency-based certificates and degree programs, 44% of which were bachelor’s degree programs.

In terms of student enrollment, impact is again concentrated within a handful of providers. WGU is the only examined provider operating at a significant scale. Its 64,000 active student population (at the time of the study; WGU serves more than 70,000 students today) ranks among the largest postsecondary student populations of any type in America. This may be due, in part, to the fact that the university has actively enrolled and served competency-based students since 2001, while other examined institutions are relatively new market entrants. Just three of the examined institutions — WGU, Capella University, and Southern New Hampshire Univserity’s Colllege or America — serve more than 1,000 competency-based education students.

Still, implications for the workforce are encouraging. Employers value and prefer postsecondary education when seeking to grow and develop their human resources. The fact that hundreds of the nation’s colleges and universities appear very eager to experiment with program design and development strategies that feature workforce competencies may bode well for the quality and readiness of the industry’s future graduates. Further study should be conducted to examine program- and institution-specific competencies in the context of specific workforce needs or job projections. Future researchers and practitioners may also wish to explore the extent, nature, and impact of employer involvement in the design and delivery of postsecondary education.

Characteristics are Non-Distinct

Characteristics of the competency-based education practices deployed by examined institutions appear to be common and are not necessarily distinct. In fact, examined artifacts, recent publications, and the researcher’s personal experience suggest that this has been largely an imitation movement within the postsecondary industry to date. WGU’s influence is paramount and apparent across the practice. All of the examined programs include at least some elements that directly mirror the approach employed by WGU. This consistency seems odd given the widespread emphasis among examined providers on innovation. And yet, the industry’s heavy and complex regulatory climate (i.e., each provider must navigate a complex web of U.S. Department of Education requirements, accreditation standards, state authorization regulations, and institution-specific governance realities) may create a fundamental need for emerging providers to follow in the footsteps of others, at least initially.

Findings suggest that WGU’s mentoring model appears more specific and personalized than the approaches employed by other examined providers. Capella University’s and Brandman University’s willingness to allow students to move freely among course-based and competency-based approaches and CFA’s requirement that enrolled students have the formal support of their employers are also distinct. The direct-assessment delivery approach itself is a distinct innovation that emerged as CFA, Capella, and others sought regulatory approval to offer their first competency-based education programs.

Other aspects of the student-facing competency-based experience appear to be largely the same across institutions — only the tuition amounts, job titles and descriptions, and qualifications of the people involved seem different. Further study of all three areas in the context of student outcomes is needed to determine how these differentiators benefit or otherwise impact their organizations and learners.

Findings were inconclusive on the consistency or particular attributes of program and assessment design methodologies. Program design methods varied or were not publically described, by provider. Some, but not all providers described program design broadly and generically as the responsibility of their faculty. Others suggested that established competency frameworks, third party subject matter experts, and/or licensing, accreditation, or certification requirements factored heavily in their program design methodologies. Assessments offered by examined providers appear to include objective exams (e.g., traditional tests with items that may be true/false, matching, multiple choice, etc.) and performance-based exams (e.g., employer-informed projects, written work, worksheets, video-based presentations, team-based work, etc.). The former tend to be employed to measure low-level, conceptual or theoretical competencies. The latter appear to be used in all program areas, but especially with upper-division undergraduate and/or graduate-level competencies. Specific details on the design, development, and maintenance of such instruments were not discovered during the present study.

Evaluation Criteria and Outcomes are Unclear

The study sought to determine what criteria had been used to evaluate the competency-based education practices deployed by American higher education institutions and what outcomes had been achieved. While a variety of evaluation criteria were discovered, the efficacy of the practice remains unclear. Empirical studies of outcomes achieved by competency-based education providers are not evident in published literature. And this study’s own findings were inconclusive.

Few of the examined institutions have published program or student performance data that could be used to determine the effectiveness of the competency-based education programs examined here. And independent assessments of performance beyond accreditor and U.S. Department of Education approval do not appear to exist for all but two of the institutions. Most, but not all, of the examined institutions have published enrollment information. Some, but again not all, have announced graduates results. Only WGU and CFA appear to have attempted to demonstrate the efficacy of their practices using internal and thrid party validated performance metrics they’ve elected to share publically.

The U.S. Department of Education has published guidelines intended to help institutions understand competency-based education in the context of its federal financial aid requirements (Bergeron, 2013). The Department’s internal Office of the Inspector General has issued separate reports (Final Audit Report ED-OIG/A05N0004, 2014; Final Audit Report ED-OIG/A05O0010, 2015) that have raised questions about the legitimacy of competency-based education in the context of Federal regulations that define and require substantive student and faculty engagement. And a consortium of the nation’s regional accrediting agencies have issued and agreed to adhere to common accreditation standards and guidelines for competency-based education (Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, 2015). These emerging factors and still evolving criteria will influence the standards and criteria by which competency-based education is evaluated during the coming years.

Opportunities for Future Research

Opportunities for future competency-based education research are both vast and significant. Fundamental questions about the efficiency, effectiveness, and evolution of the practice, the specific experiences of learners, faculty, and staff, and the efficacy of all of all of the above exist. Will the institutions currently planning to deploy new competency-based programs develop innovations that create more distinctiveness than currently exists? And if so, to what end? Will the tuition models deployed to date evolve to create less affordable options as institutions invest in what Christensen described as sustaining innovations in order to attract new learners and compete in a crowded competency-based education landscape? And if so, will consumers react negatively?

More transparency and additional research is needed in order to understand how program competencies and assessment realities are actually determined, developed, evaluated, and kept current. Further study on the specific roles of employers and faculty in this process should also occur. While beyond the scope of the present study, a phenomenological approach to include practitioners and faculty engaged in the program and assessment design process at leading competency-based institutions seems particularly appropriate. The right identification of the right competencies, measured the right way is key to the legitimacy of competency-based education. And yet this study’s methodology failed to reveal sufficient information to offer conclusions or implications in these areas.

The institutions I examined represent the vanguard of an important and fascinating evolution of postsecondary education. They have designed and deployed a new model for postsecondary learning that is attracting consumers who had otherwise been left marginalized or underserved by traditional practices. These institutions share a common understanding of, and commitment to, the fundamental competency-based education value proposition. They are working to fulfill the promise of competency-based education, a promise that ensures the ability of learners to make progress and develop in a self-directed, efficient manner, independent of time or content engagement constraints while leveraging experience as they seek to credential their knowledge, skills, and abilities.

Despite such lofty rhetoric and potential, the practice of competency-based education has been deployed in a minimal fashion among American postsecondary institutions. And as a result, to date, the practice has had only minimal impact within an industry that urgently needs innovative solutions. Learning and employment outcomes, while encouraging, remain unknown to large degree. And questions related to the assessment validity and the nature of faculty engagement with competency-based learners have surfaced in a way that will influence next iterations of the practice. More work and additional research must occur on all fronts to advance and understand the practice.

An Important Note

This post is a slightly modified excerpt from my doctoral dissertation, which will be published in full May 2016. The views expressed here are my own and are the result of that disseration research. These opinions are in no way intended to represent the perspective of my current or prior employer.