GradEdgeInsights and Research on Graduate Education

W W W . C G S N E T . O R G | V O L U M E 4 , N U M B E R 3 | A P R I L 2 0 1 5

Implications of Competency BasedLearning for Graduate Education:A Point-Counterpoint Discussion

InsideData Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Did You Know? . . . . . . . . . . . 5

In this point-counterpoint discussion,Katrina Rogers, President, Fielding GraduateUniversity, and George Walker, Consultantand former Vice President for Research andGraduate Studies at Cleveland StateUniversity; Graduate Dean at IndianaUniversity and Florida InternationalUniversity; and former Director of theCarnegie Initiative on the Doctorate, sharetheir views on competency based learningand its implications for graduate education.

Katrina Rogers:Experienced graduate educators have seen

educational fads come and go. Theresurfacing of discussions about competencybased learning (CBL), however, marks it as atrend not to be ignored. CBL is neither new,nor particularly radical. At its foundation isthe understanding that learning outcomescan be measured by the demonstration ofspecific skills—or a set of behaviors thatdemonstrate mastery of defined knowledge.One example where there is logicalcoherence between measurablecompetencies and learning is the acquisitionof research competencies, such as methods,design, data collection, analysis, and the like.At the graduate level, such research learningmay take place in laboratories, the classroom,independent study, participation in researchprojects and through the preparation anddefense of theses and dissertations.

Proponents of CBL are ecumenical inoffering this approach regardless ofdiscipline. In contrast to the traditionalmeasure of the credit hour, this model

separates learning from the confines of seattime, suggesting that as long as a studentcan demonstrate mastery of the concepts setforth as objectives, they are makingacademic progress. This notion links torelated concepts such as prior learningassessment (PLA) and self-paced learning.Once learning is separated from the credithour, it becomes possible for graduatestudents to demonstrate competenciesgained outside formal learningenvironments. PLA provides a methodologyfor assessing learning regardless of modalityincluding knowledge and skill acquiredthrough work experience, and forautodidacts by self-motivated learning. Solong as an explicit structure is in place toassess competence, CBL and PLA offer highereducation opportunities to embrace morediverse student backgrounds and learningstyles, and to accept the idea that individualslearn in different ways and at varying paces.In turn, this educational strategy increasesopportunity and access.

CBL could—and I think should—have asignificant impact on graduate education. Asan increasing number of undergraduateinstitutions embrace CBL, graduate learnersare more likely to have experienced theseprograms upon entry to graduate school.This means that their expectations forgraduate study may be quite different thanfrom those who had only experiencedtraditional approaches. In addition, preparinggraduate students for the professoriate in thepedagogy of CBL becomes increasinglyimportant. In this spirit of exploration, this

brief essay considers implications of CBL forthe various constituents and elements thatcomprise a university. Implications for graduate students: Because

CBL requires the identification ofcompetencies to be learned, students areprovided with greater clarity as toexpectations appropriate for their education.This approach essentially is an elaboration--and, depending on subject matter, anextensive one--of current accreditorexpectations that faculty specify and assesslearning outcomes for courses and academicdegrees. It requires graduate faculty toachieve more extensive consensus on whatstudents are expected to know and be ableto do. In programs where students candesign some of their own competencies withfaculty mentoring, it also provides an avenuefor them to more actively engage in theirown learning process, potentially creating astronger development of self-efficacy. Asstudents become more active learners,graduate faculty can likewise pay closerattention to their teaching and mentoring,resulting in a less hierarchical educationalenvironment.

Page 2 GradEdge

Implications for faculty and graduatepedagogy: CBL presents a challenge forfaculty in all disciplines as it calls forspecification of the competencies, that is, theknowledge and skills required at variouslevels of learning. At many universities,including my institution, we have university-wide, program-wide, and course specificcompetencies, many of which are vigorouslydiscussed by faculty colleagues with respectto meaning and measurement. CBL isparticularly useful at the program levelbecause it offers an opportunity for facultymembers to engage as a group about thecomponents of a quality program. Inaddition, discussions of CBL pedagogy offerpossibilities for faculty development. At thedoctoral level, for example, such discussionshave the potential for refining whatconstitutes preparation of a scholar orpractitioner and the outcomes criterianeeded for assessment. As we look ahead toeducating the next generation of graduatefaculty and researchers, graduate schoolsneed to be preparing to build facultyexpertise to deliver programs thatincorporate CBL that suit their respectivedisciplines, and also recognize theexpectations of more active learners. Implications for data collection: CBL

requires that data collection and analysis arealigned in such a way that an institution canmeasure learning outcomes over time fromindividual, course, and programmaticstandpoints. Data can be dis-aggregated aswell to compare outcomes across student,program, and campus characteristics toexplore causes and potential corrections tounsatisfactory levels of learning. This processinvites cross-disciplinary comparisons of thestrength of CBL and PLA pedagogy andsparks discussion and debate about theteaching and learning environment.Implications for accreditation: CBL puts

institutional goals and the capacity to assessthem at the forefront of quality assurance.Regional and professional accreditors shouldembrace CBL as another approach forinstitutions to use for assessing learning thatwill vary by the nature of the knowledge orskill to be assessed. CBL can make use ofvaried program delivery options includingonline and hybrid education as well as self-paced and mentor based learning, therebyexpanding the ways in which institutionalgoals can be achieved.

Graduate learning is about more thanmastering a skill set. CBL invites us to explorehow we account for the cumulative processof learning and the transformative quality of

learning. As graduate leaders, we need toencourage graduate faculty to discuss howthey develop the diverse competenciesexpected of advanced level learners withindiverse academic disciplines. As they helpstudents master disciplinary competencies,faculty members could be examining how toengage graduate students in the kind ofchallenges that lead to breakthroughs inunderstanding self and others. Thisnourishment of the soul that is frequentlymentioned is also a fundamental part of theendeavor of education. As one facultymember recently said to me, “I acknowledgethe importance of CBL, but are we losing thepoetry of learning—that quality thatineffably may lead our students over their lifecourse to live up to their highest potential—but may not be immediately evident?” Partof the challenge for us as graduate schooldeans and faculty is to ensure that there isalways some poetry—some opportunity forserendipity—to create those moments oflearning that can lead to personal andintellectual transformation. We only do thatby constantly challenging our assumptionsas graduate leaders. In essence, we need tomodel that habit of mind for our students,many of whom will become the nextgeneration of faculty that will serve bothgraduate and undergraduate learners in thecoming decades.

George Walker:CBL has several intriguing attributes

outlined above by my colleague Dr. KatrinaRogers. This suggests to me that CBL may bea useful additional tool for student learningin graduate education in particularcircumstances. In fact, we already employsomething loosely akin to CBL indetermining if a student should be promotedto doctoral candidacy in graduate school(preliminary or qualifying written and oralexaminations) and for determining if thestudent is ready for a final thesis defense orindeed should be granted the Ph.D. Theseactivities are not directly related to credithours or grades in specific classes and arebased on reaching a certain competencylevel. My experience is that there is aconsiderable variation in the expectationsassociated with these competences invarious disciplines and on differentcampuses.

My concern with CBL is the unprovennotion, as Dr. Rogers implies, that CBL wouldbe particularly useful across the board ingraduate education. This idea seems a bitpremature, at least, and quite problematic, if

it becomes a mantra by powerful externallegislators!

Dr. Rogers has experience with CBL in agraduate school with a particular blend ofgraduate disciplines largely focused ongraduating scholar-practitioners well suitedto specific professions. The faculty culture inher institution may well be somewhatdifferent than the mindset at a typicalresearch university. More on this later, butfirst I would like to briefly summarize somethoughts on doctoral education.

I believe the focus of doctoral education isnot just to help students acquire knowledgeand skills, but to further develop the passionand ability to innovate and apply thatknowledge with a sense of social anddisciplinary responsibility. In fact, knowledge,competencies, and skills often have finitelyuseful lifetimes. A desirable characteristic ofPh.D. holders should be that they are idealeaders and positive change agents, scholar-leaders who can imagine new approaches,skills, and competencies that will renderobsolete existing competencies. For this tooccur, an overemphasis on testing existingconcrete competencies misses the mark. Ibelieve it will be very tempting for us tofocus on competencies and skills that aremost easily measured. The habits of mind Ienvisage are more likely to emerge from adeep engagement with a robust intellectualcommunity of students and experiencedscholar-innovators both within and outsidethe academy. In fact, a narrow focus onpractically measurable competencies mayresult in the overproduction of intellectualtechnicians, as opposed to producing thehighly motivated life-long learners andinnovators that our civil society requires.Balance of approaches and astuteapplication of CBL is the key.

Dr. Rogers discusses the implication foradopting CBL such as the opportunity for thefaculty to discuss the pedagogy of CBL andusing it for faculty development. She alsopoints out the importance of data collectionand analysis. She mentions the importantrole for accrediting bodies and assessment oflearning styles. These are importantconsiderations and opportunities. However,they are opportunities that, if the past is anyguide, we will probably not utilize to thedegree advocates imagine. (Again, there maybe a difference of culture and experiencebetween Dr. Rogers’ institution and thetraditional research university.) And withoutdeep pedagogical discussions, datacollection, assessment, and considerableoversight by accrediting bodies, we are in

April 2015 Page 3

danger of doing exactly the thing we want toavoid—short changing the graduate studentby diminishing the quality of their graduatelearning experience. The opportunitiesmentioned require a level of uncommonengagement in the academy. Thatengagement is desirable, but often notpresent in our current culture at manyresearch universities. We need to change ourculture, but that will take time. Gainingexperience and selected application of CBL isthe key.

It is the best and worst of times for thediscussion of CBL at traditional researchuniversities. It is certainly necessary andtimely for us to evolve. However, because italso occurs at a time of legislative budgetcuts and simultaneously with a general callfor more accountability and efficiency, thereis a danger. The danger is that externalstakeholders (i.e., public officials) may seeCBL as a panacea and be emboldened to“strongly” suggest we use it quickly andacross the board in graduate education.What is a wise and responsible way for us toproceed? After summarizing my thoughts inthe next paragraph I will make a couple ofbrief suggestions.

Competency based learning, if utilized

judiciously, may deliver on the promise ofhelping improve the graduate studentlearning experience. However, many of ourfaculty and administrators at traditionalresearch universities do not have theexperience of using this tool widely ingraduate education. Thus, we need to firstlearn and then lead. If we do not, externalforces may come into play that will beharmful to student learning and theacademy’s independence and reputation.

Individual graduate schools can contributeand lead on their campuses by:

1. Encouraging discussions and learningabout CBL at Graduate Council meetings.

2. Working with the provost, academicdeans, and department chairs to start afew new projects using CBL. These projectsshould have appropriate assessmentmechanisms built in from the beginning.This may require some start-up funds orfaculty release time.

National higher education associations(particularly the Council of Graduate Schools)and accrediting bodies can promote wise useof CBL by including sessions at meetings thatinform and recognize good practices. Thesemay arise from the work of individual

graduate schools and universities assuggested above. Inclusion of non-traditionaluniversities that already heavily utilize CBLshould certainly be encouraged.

CBL is an example where the diversity ofgraduate schools in the United States is anasset. As the purveyors of one of the world’sfinest graduate level education systems, wecan design multiple learning models thatattract an array of student constituencies. Toreap the promise of this diversity, we need towork and learn from the experience of each.In the cause of serving a diversity of studentsand stakeholders, we should hold each otherto this higher purpose of delivering a qualitylearning experience for the heterogeneouspopulation that wants and deserves accessto a graduate education.

By Katrina S. Rogers, President, FieldingGraduate University, and George Walker,Consultant and former Vice President forResearch and Graduate Studies at ClevelandState University; Graduate Dean at IndianaUniversity and Florida International University;and former Director of the Carnegie Initiativeon the Doctorate

Registration is now Open!

Page 4 GradEdge

Data Sources: Trends in Degrees Awarded toInternational Students

It is no secret that international studentshave been applying to, enrolling in, andgraduating from U.S. graduate programs ingrowing numbers for many years. First-timegraduate enrollment increased by 11.5%between fall 2012 and fall 2013 alone, and by6.9% on average between fall 2003 and fall2013 (Allum, 2014a). In fact, internationalgraduate student enrollment increased innine of the past 10 years (Allum, 2014b). Datafrom the Educational Testing Service (2014)and the Institute for International Education(2014) corroborate these trends, and there islittle evidence to suggest that such increasesare likely to change in the immediate future.

Much of what is known about the growthof international graduate studentpopulations, however, masks potentialdifferences by degree objective. Whileinstitutions of higher education are generallyknown to have larger numbers of master’sstudents than doctoral students, most datacollection efforts are focused on graduatestudent populations in aggregate. The CGSInternational Graduate Admissions Survey isbeginning to collect data and reportingfindings in ways that disaggregateapplications, offers of admission, andenrollment of students according to whethertheir degree objective is a master’s/certificatedegree or doctoral degree. Phase I of thesurvey, for example, focuses on thepreliminary number of applications receivedfor fall 2015 by degree objective for all broad

fields of study, for all regions of the world,and for eight selected countries. Moreover,the survey population has been expanded toinclude not only CGS member institutions,but also institutions who are members of thefour regional graduate associations but notmembers of CGS. Results generated by thisredesign should provide a new way ofexamining trends in international graduatestudent application, admission, andenrollment trends, and in anticipation of thisnew report, this article examines trends indegree production among temporaryresidents using data from the U.S.Department of Education’s National Centerfor Education Statistics IntegratedPostsecondary Education Data System(IPEDS).

Over the 17-year period between 1996 and2012, there were considerable increases inmaster’s and doctoral degree productionamong international students (see Table 1).There was an 85% increase in the number ofmaster’s degrees awarded to temporaryresidents at U.S. institutions of highereducation, from 48,256 in 1996 to 89,944 in2012. During this same time period, therewas a 47% increase in the number ofdoctoral degrees awarded to temporaryresidents, from 11,454 in 1996 to 16,885 in2012.

Differences by Degree ObjectiveThe number of master’s degrees awarded

in science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM) to temporary residentsnearly doubled between 1996 and 2012,from 20,937 to 39,798. The number ofmaster’s degrees awarded to temporaryresidents in all other fields increased from13,006 in 1996 to 22,912 in 2012, a 76% gain.Growth in degree production at the master’slevel was largely driven by business andengineering. In 2012, the field of businessconstituted 30% of all master’s degreesawarded to temporary residents, and thefield of engineering constituted 20% of allmaster’s degrees awarded to temporaryresidents. Not only are these the two largestfields of study at the master’s level, they havealso grown the most rapidly over the past 17years. More than one-half (53%) of the totalgrowth in master’s degree productionamong temporary residents came fromincreases in the fields of engineering andbusiness. The number of master’s degreesawarded in the field of business nearlydoubled between 1996 and 2012, from14,313 to 27,234. The number of master’sdegrees in engineering increased 90%during the same time period, from 9,131 in1996 to 18,384 in 2012. There was a 142%increase in the number of master’s degreesawarded in computer and informationsciences between 1996 and 2012, and a131% increase in master’s degrees inmathematics and statistics during the sametime period.

Table 1: Degrees Awarded to Temporary Residents by DegreeObjective and Field of Study, Selected Years

April 2015 Page 5

Although the number of doctoral degreesawarded to temporary residents increasedbetween 1996 and 2012, the increases werenot as large as those at the master’s level.The number of doctoral degrees in STEMincreased 50% from 1996 to 2012, from 8,648to 12,992. The number of doctoral degrees inbusiness, which were comparatively smallerthan the number of business degreesawarded at the master’s level, increased from424 in 1996 to 679 in 2012, or 60%. Thenumber of doctoral degrees awarded in allother fields increased 35% between 1996and 2012, from 2,382 to 3,214.

More doctoral degrees are awarded totemporary residents in engineering than anyother field of study. In 2012, 29% of alldoctoral degrees awarded to temporaryresidents were awarded in engineering.Engineering, physical sciences, and biologicaland biomedical sciences constitute 55% of alldoctoral degrees awarded to temporaryresidents in 2012. The number of doctoraldegrees awarded increased 58% inengineering, 66% in biological andbiomedical sciences, and 35% in physicalsciences between 1996 and 2012. There wasa 121% increase in the number of doctoraldegrees awarded in computer andinformation sciences between 1996 and

2012, and a 50% increase in the number ofdoctoral degrees awarded in mathematicsand statistics during the same time period.

Long-term TrendsAlthough the overall growth in the

number of master’s degrees awarded hasoutpaced the overall growth in the numberof doctoral degrees awarded between 1996and 2012, master’s degree productionappears to be somewhat more volatile thandoctoral degree production over the long-term. (see Figure 1). This may be partlyexplained by the fact that fewer doctoraldegrees are awarded each year compared tomaster’s degrees. This trend may also beexplained by the fact that it takes longer foreconomic, public policy, and otherconditions to be reflected due to the lengthof doctoral programs. For instance, between1997 and 2003, master’s degree productionenjoyed various levels of increases. In 2004,three years after 9/11, master’s degreeproduction declined by 6%, followed by twomore years of declines before increasingagain in 2007. Similarly, between 1999 and2006, doctoral degree production amonginternational students enjoyed various levelsof increases. Beginning in 2007, and for thenext two years, doctoral production

decreased before increasing again in 2010. Inretrospect, it appears as though changes instudent visa policies immediately following9/11 may have interrupted growth ingraduate enrollment among temporaryresidents.

It is likely that increases in applicationsfrom, admissions of, and enrollment amonginternational graduate students will continuefor the foreseeable future. As data collectionimproves, so too will our understanding ofthe drivers of these changes, and our abilityto inform policy and practice. Phase I of theCGS International Graduate Admissions Surveywill be released in the spring of 2015,offering the next generation of data on thistopic.

By Jeff Allum, Director, Research and PolicyAnalysis, Council of Graduate Schools

References:

Allum, J. (2014a). Graduate enrollment anddegrees: 2003 to 2013. Washington, DC:Council of Graduate Schools.

Allum, J. (2014b). CGS International graduateadmissions survey, phase III: final offers ofadmission and enrollment. Washington, DC:Council of Graduate Schools.

Institute of International Education. (2014).International students by academic level andplace of origin, 2013/14. Open doors report oninternational educational exchange. Retrievedfrom http://www.iie.org/opendoors.

Educational Testing Service. (2014). Asnapshot of the individuals who took the GRErevised general test. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ets.org/s/gre/pdf/snapshot_test_taker_data_2014.pdf.

Figure 1: Number of Degrees Awarded to Temporary Residents by Degree Objective,1996-2012

Did you knowthat about 44%of incoming

freshmen say they plan on earning amaster's degree, while 21% want toearn a doctorate or professionaldegree?

http://heri.ucla.edu/pr-display.php?prQry=160

DIDYOUKNOW?