http://www.1099.com/graphics/illustrations/Critic.gif

The concept of competence creates controversy and confusion. Jansen (1998) states that the language and terminology associated with CBE are too complex, confusing, and sometimes contradictory.  From the writer’s point of view, the real issue should not be about terminology, but about recognition and understanding of the different ideas that the terminology communicates.

Brown (1994) describes competencies as traditionally focused and strongly imbedded in the rational- positivistic paradigm, as well as being imposed, hierarchical, and deterring emancipation or independent and free thought.

The critical perspective, while having little to say about which conception of competence should underpin CBE, suggests that the competency based-education and training movement is, itself, embedded within a particular set of existing economic, social, and political power relationships that are anti-emancipatory and exploitative. From this perspective, competency-based descriptions of work cannot be divorced from the ways in which they are used to continue the exploitative nature of work as organised in market economies (Chappell et al., 2000)

Jacobus (2007) analyses criticisms of CBE based on the design and implementation processes of the model:

• The early CBE programmes focused on competencies to the detriment of the role of knowledge. Complex professional education could not be completely defined in terms of a list of key competencies.
• CBE ignores the educational process and focused solely on particular measurable and practicable outcomes.
• Criticisms of the behaviourist features in CBE include the view that CBE is a narrowly utilitarian and instrumental approach that would imply a fragmentation of subjects. Behaviouristic CBE is criticized for ignoring the connections between tasks, the attributes that underlie performance, the meaningful intention of the practitioner, or disposition to act, the context of performance, and the effect of interpersonal and ethical aspects. 
• CBE reduces education to a form of human engineering because it views education as instrumental to specific ends. Systematic means-ends programme design attracted the labels of ‘technical’ and ‘technocracy’, having too strong a focus on competencies, and neglecting values, technical precision of outcomes (atomised list of functions) and presents education as a product rather than a process.

Roberts (1986) argues that the method by which the CBE curriculum is implemented, itself carries hidden assumptions about reality and the social order which serve to support the current socioeconomic model.

According to Kerka, (1998) to the antagonists of the competency model, this model is:

Excessively reductionist, narrow, rigid, atomized, and theoretically, empirically, and pedagogically unsound…the behaviourist breaks down competence into the performance of discrete tasks, identified by functional analysis of work roles. This analysis is the basis for competency statements or standards upon which competence is assessed and toward achievement of which CBE is directed (Kerka, 1998, p.2).

The emphasis on behaviours and performance, rather than on the mastering of cognitive skills, is consistent with the view that perceives competence in terms of basic attributes. This view not only tends to produce narrow technical skills, but also ignores the students’ and workers’ meaningful experiences in the practical field (Dall’Alba & Sandberg, 1996).

The competency model is classified as a tool that, if specified and assessed too narrowly, can work to hinder education and training. In some cases, if the model is used as a curriculum document to teach discrete tasks, or used to assess superficial competency standards, then the resulting curriculum may become narrow in content (Kerka, 1998)

Hyland (1993) argues that “competence strategies are criticised for their conceptual imprecision and their behaviourist foundation” (p.57). In this sense, the competence movement is incoherent because it embraces a confusing variety of notions of competence and of conceptions of the relationship between knowledge, understanding and performance. As well, the competence model relies on a crude form of behaviourism, which attaches too much importance on performance over knowledge and understanding, and artificially separates the mental and physical components of performance, and can be confusing (Hyland, 1993).

 In summary, the critics of the competency model suggest that it contains an inappropriate and reductive representation of learning. From this view point, the competency model is educationally and philosophically inadequate. The arguments claim that all the conceptions of competence inevitably collapse into behaviourism. Therefore, the competency model pursues only a reductionist list of behaviours and skills to develop and exercise.

It could be pointed out that criticisms of pure behaviourist theory may not be adequate to analyse other philosophical foundations of CBE. In other words, criticisms of behaviouristic CBE are no longer valid. The writer asserts that CBE includes cognitive levels of understanding and attitudes. Modern CBE practices acknowledge that learning objectives should cover the whole spectrum of knowledge, skills, capabilities, and attitudes. The holistic competence approach is consistent with social cognitive psychological learning theories and acknowledges the role of context and the influences of culture. Context plays a strong role in CBE situational analysis for programs which address a more integrated and comprehensive point of view. Logical programme planning and a coherent relationship between components is not equivalent to a mechanical approach. CBE appears to have a learner- centred and real life contextual orientation.

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://

Through the literature, it is possible to find different classifications of competencies. The most common category identifies general or basic competencies and specific competencies. Gonzalez & Sanchez (2003) grouped competencies into categories such as: basic competencies, which are the basis for the learning process, personal competencies, which allow individuals to be successful in different life experiences, and professional competencies, which guarantee that the tasks and responsibilities are met. Hearn, Smith, Southey & Close (1995) divide competencies into two classes, technical competencies, which are unique to each profession and non-technical competencies such as abilities, attitudes, and knowledge, which are generic to all professions.  According to Echeverria (2001) professional competencies are: technical, methodological, participatory and personal. From the following chart, it is possible to recognize a clear description of some kinds of competency:

 (Cheetham & Chivers, 1998, p. 274)

The DeSeCo Project’s conceptual framework for key competencies classifies competencies in three broad categories. Each category, with a specific competency focus, provides a challenge in developing and implementing educational programs. First, individuals need to be able to use an extensive range of knowledge and abilities for interacting effectively with the environment. This suggests that students need to understand how to use their knowledge and abilities interactively. Second, in an increasingly mutually dependent world, individuals need to be able to engage with others, as they will meet people from a range of backgrounds. Third, individuals need to be able to take responsibility for managing their own lives, adjust their lives in the broader social context and act autonomously (DeSeCo, 2005).

In identifying key competencies, it is necessary to consider psychosocial pre-requisites for a successful and a well-functioning life. There are key competencies necessary for adapting to a world characterized by change, complexity and interdependence (DeSeCo, 2005).

According to DeSeCo (2005) a framework of key competencies consists of a set of specific competencies, connected in an integrated approach. Consequently, the underlying features across the categories of competencies are:

1.       Moving beyond taught knowledge and skills

In many OECD countries, the value of the educational system is based on flexibility, entrepreneurship, and personal responsibility. Not only are individuals expected to be adaptive, but also innovative, creative, self-directed and self-motivated. As a result, key competencies involve the mobilization of cognitive and practical skills, creative abilities, and other psychosocial resources such as attitudes, motivation, and values (DeSeCo, 2005).

The relevant component in this category is “the ability of individuals to think for themselves as an expression of moral and intellectual maturity and to take responsibility for their learning and for their actions” (DeSeCo, 2005, p.8).

2.     Reflection: the heart of key competencies

Reflective thought and action is an underlying feature of this category. “Thinking reflectively demands relatively complex mental processes and requires the subject of a thought process to become its object” (p.8). Therefore, reflection involves the use of meta-cognitive skills “creative abilities and taking a critical stance. It is not just about how an individual thinks, but also about how an individual constructs experiences more generally, including thoughts, feelings and social relations” (p.9).

3.      Combining key competencies

The special characteristic or diversity in the socio- cultural context demands a further link between the specific competencies. Consequently, “any given situation or goal may demand a constellation of competencies, configured differently for each particular case” (p.9). Individuals who are confronting different situations will apply a variety of competencies depending on the situation. Some factors which affect the development and implementation of new competencies include cultural norms, technological access, and social and power relations among others (DeSeCo, 2005).

The above category of key competencies demonstrates that each competency involves knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values. Beckett & Hager (1993) indicate that, from a relational and integrated view of competency, these attributes are not discrete and independent. As well, all competencies are developed and practiced in different contexts. It is important to emphasize that the competency of reflection is viewed as an opportunity to constantly review, evaluate, and incorporate new competencies which allow the individual to better respond to the ongoing and inevitable change. 

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/

Norris (1991) presents an overview which demonstrates the variety of philosophical foundations of the competency model.  The author provides three different theories or constructs of competence:

• A behaviorist construct: Competence is treated as something a person is or should be able to do. It is a description of action, behavior or outcome capable of demonstration and assessment.
• A cognitive construct: Competence as what a person knows and can do under ideal circumstances.
• A generic construct: The generic competence approach favors the elicitation, through behavioral event or critical incident interviewing, of those general abilities associated with expert performers. (p.332)

Another exploration of the philosophical foundation of competency was presented by Gonczi in 1997. He distinguishes between three basic conceptions of the nature of competency: the behaviourist, the generic and the holistic. In the behaviourist view, competence is conceived in terms of the discrete and observable behaviours associated with the completion of specific tasks. Evidence of the possession of the competency is based on direct observation of performance. One advantage of conceptualising competencies in behavioural terms is that it is helpful in course design, especially when the emphasis is on practical tasks (Gonczi, 1997). This approach is not concerned with the connections between the tasks, and ignores the possibility that the coming together of tasks could lead to their transformation. This approach ignores underlying attributes, group processes, and their effects on performance.

The generic conception includes underlying attributes such as knowledge or critical thinking capability, and provides the basis for transferable or more specific attributes. In this model, competencies are thought of as general attributes, with little concern for the context in which they might be applied (Gonczi, 1997). Generic competencies are perceived as important by several professions and the names of competency domains are similar. However, Gonczi (1997) argues that generic competencies are limited by the fact that they teach and assess those general attributes in isolation from actual professional practice. They are somewhat disconnected from future professional performance and tend to ignore specific competencies.

 The combination of the two approaches creates a more holistic, integrated, and relational approach. Beckett & Hager (1995) conceptualise integrated competencies in terms of knowledge, abilities, skills and attitudes displayed in the context of a carefully chosen set of realistic professional tasks or intentional actions which are at an appropriate level of generality.

Velde (1999) indicates that traditionally competence has been perceived in terms of individual attributes or a discrete set of tasks to be performed. To Velde, it remains somewhat confusing as to what a competency actually is. Is it a personal attribute, an act or an outcome of behaviour?. He further suggests that the concern for defining competence has been expressed in a need for a more holistic approach and presents an alternative idea of competency – an interpretative, relational perspective. Velde (1999) also suggests that it is necessary for students and workers to have the opportunity to reflect on their practical experiences. If they are actively involved in gaining a personal more useful understanding of their experience, then they will be able to adapt learned competencies, as well as develop new ones to deal with the rapidly changing world.

Another philosophical foundation of CBE is provided by Chappell et al., (2000). This approach discusses four different interpretations of the concept of competence: positivist, humanist, critical, and postmodern. To these authors, human reason and objectivity are central elements in this approach. A positivist perception of competence focuses on the technical aspects of work, where the focus is on the measurement of directly observable performance measured against specified and objectively developed criteria. The authors suggest that competencies are simply behaviors applied to the components of the work. One consequence of this view of the educational system is the development and implementation of highly mechanistic and task oriented curricula, with the focus on skills and outcomes.  

The humanist orientation opens the opportunity to integrate social and cognitive aspects in the definition of competencies. In this context, the concept of competency is attractive for those who are looking for a more accessible and equitable way to design learning goals and assessment criteria. In this approach, competencies are seen as more than “a long list of tasks which fragment the occupation and ignore the relationship between the knowledge, skills, and attitudes” (Chappell et al., 2000, p.199).  The humanistic approach promotes the integration of both generic and specific attributes. Under this view, it is also possible to integrate social contexts.

The critical perspective suggests that competency based education operates within social, political, and economic environments characterized by an oppressive set of power relations which shape learning. For critical theorists, any competency analysis must engage in an investigation of power relationships as constituted, and includes specific work settings. In addition, some critics suggest that the concept of competence is linked to a positivist policy framework of economic rationalism. Opponents of CBE also emphasize that the world view, related to the training process, appears to contradict the lived experiences of workers, learners, and educators (Chappell et al., (2000). It seams clear that in reality, many workers, who try to solve problems and make decisions, work autonomously, think creatively, and communicate effectively, but are often confronted by inflexible organizational structures and equally unchanging power relations.

Poststructural and postmodern literature suggests that competencies need to be recreated or reconstructed. From this perspective, the discourses on CBE act as powerful and influential devices that design and construct learning in a particular way. Competency standards are generally designed to be applicable across different contexts and situations in which learners and workers exist (Chappell et al., (2000). CBE legitimizes and supports particular meanings of learning. All learning is constructed as instrumental and pre-formative, closely associated with the requirements of work.

After the review of different interpretations of the concept of competence, it is relevant to present a comparison of behaviorist and holistic approaches within CBE.  Preston &Walker (1993) indicate that the nature of competencies and relationship between competencies in the behaviorist approach is individualistic specific, discrete, and defined in terms of behavior only. Meanwhile, in the holistic approach competencies are complex combinations of personal attributes, enabling the performance of a variety of tasks. In the behaviorist view, the evidence of competencies comes from direct observation of performance of relevant activities-assumed to give direct and clear indications of whether or not the competency is held (Preston & Walker, 1993). Contrarily, in the holistic approach the evidence of competencies form coherent structures of competence, and each attribute has a distinct and unique structure. In the behaviorist approach, the relation between knowledge and competencies is based on the idea that required knowledge is inferred directly from behaviorally defined competencies. In the holistic view, knowledge exists and can be understood separately from the exercise of competencies. Knowledge and understanding can be seen as having a complex and coherent structure.  A relationship exists between competency statements and the education or training program (Preston &Walker , 1993). From the behaviorist viewpoint, competency statements relate directly to the content, structure, and assessment criteria of education and training programs having little diversity, flexibility, application, or development. In contrast, the holistic approach supports the view that there are strong connections between structures of competence and education and training programs, generally having overall coherence. Programs can, however, be diverse in their structure and curriculum, be flexible, and involve experimentation and research (Preston &Walker, 1993).   It appears that the holistic approach allows a wider perspective than an individual performance model. The holistic approach considers the impact of group processes and culture in the development and performance of competencies.

From the writer’s point of view, the holistic approach to competency is connected to the four pillars of education identified by Delors in 1999: learning to live together, learning to know, learning to do, and learning to be.

Learning to live together is a competency developed through an understanding of others and their histories, traditions and spiritual values. (Delors,1993)

Learning to know is a competency that has evolved due to the rapid changes brought about by scientific progress and new forms of economic and social activity. The emphasis is on combining a sufficiently broad general education with the possibility of in-depth work on a selected number of subjects (Delors,1993).

 Learning to do is a competency that involves the acquisition of a competence that enables people to deal with a variety of situations, often unforeseen, and to work in teams, an aspect to which educational methods do not at present pay enough attention (Delors, 1993).

Learning to be is a competency for the twenty-first century in which individuals we will need to exercise greater independence and judgment, combined with a stronger sense of personal responsibility for the attainment of common social goals such as eliminating poverty, protecting the environment, and promoting social justice. Consequently, it is imperative to recognize that talents, which are hidden like buried treasure in every person, must be tapped through effective education. A few of these talents include: memory, reasoning power, imagination, physical ability, an esthetic sense, the aptitude to communicate with others and the natural charisma of the group leader, all of which requires the need for greater self-knowledge (Delors,1993).

As a final element in the overview related to the philosophical foundations of CBE, it is necessary to present a brief review of how philosophical approaches of CBE lead curriculum development. According to Spady (1994) there are three main variations in CBE curriculum models. First, the traditional model defines curriculum and learning in terms of subject content. It is based on behaviouristic learning theory -oriented and bureaucratically managed education. To be successful, learners have to engage mentally with content at lower cognitive levels. Thus, competencies, defined as the ability to complete a wider range of tasks, receive little attention.

Second, the transitional model focuses on competency and higher cognitive levels of learning. The curriculum incorporates an interdisciplinary and thematic approach to content selection, organization and delivery. Exit and learning outcomes that cut across disciplines exist. As well, creative learning and projects provide opportunities to develop understanding competencies and accountability learning (Spady, 1994).

Third, the transformational model of CBE represents the most developed and complex model. The outcomes capture understanding and competencies beyond subject content, such as life roles, that are critical for individuals and society in the long run. A focus on such broad life skills implies that the transformational model prepares learners, not only to fit into the current contexts, but to create new futures. It refers to an integration of knowledge and skills, constructivist learning theories, learner-centered curricula, post modernism views and participative management of education as an organic orientation (Spady, 1994).

I really appreciate your comments and suggestions!!! 

For more information please visit http://cbeandsocialwork.wikispaces.com/

http://www.pmforum.org/BNews/7-08/BN1-19-07-08.jpg

The concept of competency has a long history and it is linked with the philosophical foundations and approaches in educational and learning theories. Three of the most important learning theories are Behaviourism, Cognitive Theory, and Constructivism.

According to Schuman (1996) Behaviourism is based on observable changes in individual behaviour. New behaviours need to be repeated until they are converted into automatic responses (internalized). The learner is focused on a clear goal and can respond automatically to the ordered cues of that goal.  However, in reality, learners may find themselves in situations where the stimulus for a correct response does not occur, and therefore in that instance the learner cannot respond. For example, a worker who has been conditioned to respond to a certain cue at work will stop production when an anomaly occurs, because he has not been trained to respond to the new situation.

Cognitive theory focuses on the thought processes behind the behaviour. This process is psychological in nature and attempts to explain human behavior by understanding thought processes. The assumption is that humans are logical beings making choices that are most sensible to them. Any observed changes in behaviour reflect what is happening inside the learner’s mind. The goal is to enable learners to do a task consistently. The learner learns a way to accomplish a task, but it may not be the best way, or suited to the learner or the situation. For example, logging onto the internet on one computer may not be the same as logging in on another computer. In that new situation the learner should have the ability to select a correct strategy for the different situation based on a previous different but, at the same time, similar experiences.

Constructivism is based on the idea that individuals construct their own perceptions and perspectives of the world as a result of both previous and ongoing individual experiences and contexts. This adaptability and flexibility prepares the learner to problem solve in new and unpredictable situations. The learner is better able to interpret multiple realities and to deal creatively with real life situations. If learners can problem solve, they may better apply their existing knowledge to a novel situation. In a situation where conformity is prescribed, divergent thinking and action may cause conflict (Schuman (1996).

Through the review of the historical foundations of CBE, it is possible to recognise connections between CBE and learning theories.  Authors such as Achtenhagen and Grubb (2001) point out that the first task analysis emerged in Moscow in the 1860s, where Victor Della Vos developed methods for task analysis based, in part, on the conditioning theory of Pavlov. Soon after, these methods were used in the American movements for manual and technical training. Biemans, Nieuwenhuis, Poell, Mulder, & Wesselink (2004) relate a long history of competence-based education, including referencing Bobbitt’s approach in the 1920s. Bobbitt makes a scientific analysis of human actions to identify underlying abilities needed for higher performance. In the 1960′s, a behaviourist approach for directly translating task descriptions into behavioural attainment targets initiated responses in instructional program design.

In the United States, interest in competence-based education and training developed during the 1960s and 1970s, as a consequence of various publications on competence-based organizational training and competence-based teacher training (Biemas et al. 2004). The beginning of the modern movement is related to the work of David McClelland, who argued that traditional academic examinations do not predict job performance or success in life (Brundrett, 2000). Thus, in the 1970′s, cognitive learning theories replaced the automatic instructional models applied  the more holistic approaches of competency.  A study by Wood & Power (as cited in Norris, 1991) consider competency from a developmental perspective. The , suthord view  this perspective as resting on both an integrated deep structure of understanding and on the general ability to coordinate appropriate resources (internal cognitive, affective, and other) necessary for successful adaptation. Norris (1991) suggests this represents a very real shift in approach. Consequently, the developmental approach to competence is not focused on measurable operational definitions.

The historical review of CBE further reveals that the initial CBE features were influenced by vocational training and qualifications. This led to a narrowing of skills, knowledge and occupational focus. The criticism over the years, the increasing experience in different educational contexts, and the variety of philosophical foundations are some factors which influenced the development of CBE. The proponents of competence have helped to evolve CBE and to adopt more inclusive and holistic language when describing and applying the model. Thus, the debate about CBE in an educational context is ongoing. 

I really appreciate your comments and suggestions!!! 

For more information please visit http://cbeandsocialwork.wikispaces.com/

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://www.kwintessential.co.uk

Clear communication requires the establishment of accurate definitions of concepts used. Concepts have different connotations or denotations, and often these variations in meanings reflect the different viewpoints and opinions of authors. Harris, Guthrie, Hobart & Lundberg (1995) explain that the concept of competence “… is being shaped and moulded as it travels along its exploratory way”. Consequently, historical and contemporary literature reveals the existence of different conceptualizations related to the concept of competence. Writers in this field acknowledge the difficulty in framing a single and comprehensive definition of CBE (Hackett, 2001).

Gale & Pol (1976) point out that competence, by definition, is tied to a position or role. The ligatures binding the two are abilities, knowledge, skills, judgment, attitudes and values required for successful functioning in a position or role.  Spady (1977) defines competencies as “indicators of successful performance in life-role activities and distinguished them from the discrete cognitive, manual, and social capacities” (p. 10). Chickering & Claxton (1981) mention that “competence is internal and external, situational and personal; competence is limited by a person’s perceptions, neurological system, and character; achieving competencies requires diverse learning styles; competence itself is a motivational force” (p. 11). Ewens (as cited in Chickering & Claxton,1981) suggests  that “competence is what the Greek called Arete, a power which has been trained and developed so that it has become a characteristic of the person who has it” (p. 9).

Raylatt & Lohan (1995) indicate that “competencies are a description of the essential skills, knowledge, and attitudes required for effective performance in a work situation” (p.47). 

Bridges (1996) suggests that one of the features common to all forms of competence is the highlighting of what people do and how they perform appropriately in a range of settings. In the same sense, Pithers (1998) observes that “competency is about what attributes underlie successful performance” (p.2).

In the view of Carraccio, Englander, Ferentz, Martin, & Wolfsthal (2002) “Competency is a complex set of behaviours built on the components of knowledge, skills, attitudes, and competence as personal ability” (p. 362).

The report of the National Postsecondary Education Cooperative Working Group on Competency-Based Initiatives in Postsecondary Education (2002) suggests that “competencies are the bridge between traditional credit hour measures of student achievement and the learning revolution… a competency is defined as a combination of skills, abilities, and knowledge needed to perform a specific task” (vii).

In 1997, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)[1] created the DeSeCo Project (Definition and Selection of Competencies) having the goal of  providing “a sound conceptual framework to inform the identification of key competencies and strengthen international surveys measuring the competence level of young people and adults” (DeSeCo, 2005, p.5).  Under Switzerland’s leadership, in collaboration with the Program for International Students Assessments (PISA), experts from a variety of disciplines, stakeholders, and policy analysts were brought together to produce a framework of competencies. This ongoing project recognizes the importance of diversity in values and priorities across countries and cultures. It has also acknowledged the increasing challenges of the global economy.

This framework of key competencies supports the writer’s position related to the holistic vision of the concept of competence, and also provides a concrete explanation and definition of competency. According to DeSeCo (2005) a competency is “more than just knowledge and skills. It involves the ability to meet complex demands by drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in a particular context” (p.4). In the 21^st century, individuals face collective challenges as societies, such as balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability.  In order to meet these increasingly complex challenges, individuals will need a wider range of competencies. In other words, to meet their goals, individuals need more complex competencies which require more than the mastery of certain narrowly defined skills “…sustainable development and social cohesion depend critically on the competencies of all of our population -with competencies understood to cover knowledge, skills, attitudes and values” (DeSeCo, 2005, p. 4).These relational competencies would provide individuals with a strong foundations in order to face the challenges in society.

From these definitions, it is important to recognise that there are two contrasting views of competency. Chappell, Gonczi & Hager (2000) name these views “narrow and broad” (p. 192). The narrow view presents competencies simply as standardized training outcomes or behaviours. Thus, this view is solely concerned with the achievement of pre-specified training goals and with meeting certain skill standards. On the other hand, the broader view does not separate performance from competency, and argues that there are a large variety of attributes that underpin competencies including social, intellectual, and emotional factors. 

The second argument tends to support the writer’s view related to the identification of two opposite poles on a continuum. One pole sees a competency as a standardized skill (static and minimalist), while the other pole promotes a developmental and elaborative construct in interrelation with the social context.

A second reflection from the definitions of competency is that competency is essentially a relation between abilities or capabilities which expresses the relational character of the concept.  In this case, a competency involves knowledge, abilities, attitudes, and values which need to be internalized by the individual for successful performance. At the same time, it is possible to see that the acquisition of competencies is an ongoing process. In other words, when the individuals are facing different situations, they have to develop and implement new or adjusted competencies.

I really appreciate your comments and suggestions!!! 

For more information please visit http://cbeandsocialwork.wikispaces.com/

The OECD brings together the governments of countries committed to democracy and the market economy from around the world to support sustainable economic growth, boost employment, raise living standards, maintain financial stability, assist other countries’ economic development, and contribute to growth in world trade.

www.firststep-performance.com

 In these times of rapid change, current conditions and possible future roles of the university need careful scrutiny. As a result of this change, universities are facing unique challenges and opportunities. Their analysis will help academia and education policy makers to drive these changes in the most desirable direction in their specific context. All these changes could affect the missions of universities in a variety of ways. Some questions which may guide the reflection on this topic are: What could be the main missions of the university? What could be its sources of funding? How can the commitment of the university to society in this rapidly evolving context be reinforced? How could these changes affect the learning and teaching process, as well as the role and the position of the university in society? What would the impact be for learners and academics, for the society and economy? According to Cox & Light (2001) higher education “no longer simply resides in society, it is of society, and being of society it has increasingly become subject to each society’s prevailing ideologies” (p.2). In other words, higher education no longer simply shapes society through the contribution of knowledge, but rather is shaped by society through knowledge specification (dialectic relationship).The literature reveals four interrelated fields which are pressuring universities to adopt new missions and strategies. The first is in the field of demographics and participation. According to Vincent- Lancrin (2004) in most Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries there has been a rising demand for post-secondary education, resulting in ‘mass education’. In addition, demographic changes in the school age population show a continuous decline in the number of young people. Second, shifts in governance and funding could affect the organization of universities. Higher education systems vary considerably within the OECD countries in terms of those aspects. The university systems display different mixes of public and private funding related to educational programs and research. In most OECD countries higher education is largely public funded. There are “only six OECD countries where private incomes exceed 30% of the total university budget” (Vincent- Lancrin, 2004, p. 249).The third force which impacts higher education is the knowledge economy. This is due to the fact that the development and transmission of knowledge has and is expected to become increasingly important for growth in developed, transitions, and developing economies. In other words, knowledge intensive activities represent an important aspect of the Gross Domestic Product. Fourth, new actors in higher education-corporate universities, consortia, and virtual universities-have entered higher education and are changing the usual borders between institutions. The borders between different types of educational institutions are no longer clear cut. Universities no longer need to confine themselves to degree granting education, but to move to providing professional training in the practical field.
All these changes invite reflection on one of the most important goals of universities which is how universities ensure that students acquire significant knowledge, skills, and practical experience to prepare them for a successful integration into adult life. In response to the challenges, some universities are adopting strategies related to Competency Based Education (CBE). According to Guthrie, Harris, Hobart & Lundberg (1995) CBE is being implemented in many forms in many situations throughout the world.

 visit:http://cbeandsocialwork.wikispaces.com/

I really appreciate your comments and reflections!!!