Competency Based Education and Training

Competence based education and training 19
Conclusion
This has been, necessarily, a superficial review of the development of CBET with many
issues left unexamined. The CBET movement in the USA has been internalised in some
quarters but has still to be assimilated in others. The genesis of the CBET movement in
the UK is more clear cut—with an obvious political commitment to the notion. The
movement in the UK is now quite strong but a great deal of development work is needed.
This must be accompanied by research to assist the improvement of system design and
implementation: there are substantial opportunities for people in the higher education
system to guide and influence the way CBET develops. In particular, there is a need for
refinement of the methodologies of competence analysis, of exploration of the potential
application of CBET to professions and in evaluation of pilot and operational schemes in
both summative and formative ways. Improved methods for the assessment of
competence, with the assurance of validity, reliability and cost effectiveness are no less
important here, or problematic, than in more traditional spheres. In addressing these
opportunities there are some benefits to be derived from the rather chequered
development of the CBET approach in the USA and some costly mistakes may be
avoided by study of that system.
I would like to offer some propositions for further thought.
(a) There is only limited use in universal definitions of competence, though these may
help to establish the framework for more detailed work: each
occupational/professional field needs to develop its own conception and working
definition. Some fields are more process than product based and may often be context
dependent. Competence in many cases is neither value-free nor independent of the
context of its application (see Wolfe, 1980).
(b) CBET does not diminish the importance of knowledge and understanding; it does
however change the grounds for its justification.
(c) Methods of occupational/professional analysis should be sophisticated enough to give
a multi-dimensional view of competence. There is a strong case for ‘triangulation’ in
analysis to avoid a simplistic representation. There has been a tendency to ‘tunnel
vision’ in some examples from the USA with examples which are too rigidly anchored
to task analysis. Any model of competence should incorporate both the analysed
functions of the occupation and the characteristics of highly competent role holders.
(d) CBET analysis, specification and delivery systems should take account of current
occupational needs but still allow for role development and role extension. There is a
tendency for some methods of analysis simply to confirm the status quo. The training
specification or curriculum which arises from occupational needs should allow for
growth and for transfer.
(e) CBET has great potential in continuing professional development (CPD), particularly
where it is necessary to ensure that professionals maintain and adapt their
competences to new conditions. Licensed occupations (and others) need to maintain
competence through CPD and regular performance review.
(f) The notion of ‘minimum competence levels’ is useful for certification purposes but
carries some-risks if these are the only standards available. Many organisations