It is not always clear to teachers what is meant by competence-based testing. There is thus also considerable uncertainty regarding whether a teacher’s own testing is or is not competence-based. In this tip, we provide a brief explanation of the most prominent characteristics of competence-based tests. The extent to which assessments are competence-based depends on the extent to which the following characteristics have been achieved. These characteristics apply to separate modules, as well as at the level of the programme (i.e. the testing policy).
Integration of instruction and testing
Classic testing usually involves a series of instructive lectures concluding with summative testing. In summative testing, assessment is performed at the end of each module, with the full results of these assessments being counted in the final assessment. The structure of this timing usually leads students to exert the most effort shortly before the summative final test. In contrast, competence-based involves both summative and formative testing. This means that teachers also use interim tests to stimulate the learning processes of their students. For example, when students receive a summative assessment based on a paper that is submitted at the end of a module, they can receive formative direction in the process through interim testing or feedback on the paper. In addition to enhancing the learning effect, this promotes depth in the processing of the course material.
Student involvement
In a classic testing environment, responsibility for the assessment rests completely with the teacher. This system, however, has come under increasing criticism in recent years. Because teachers continually tell their students how they have performed, students have relatively little insight into the manner in which their performance can be assessed. Such insight is nevertheless important to their future ability to function in the professional field. For this reason, teachers who use competence-based involve the students and their peers in the formative assessment. Other parties can be involved in the assessment as well, including project customers, patients, co-workers and supervisors in the internship company or external parties from the professional field. They could provide numerical and/or written interim assessments that could help the student and teacher to adjust the learning process. The teacher could also take these assessments into account when determining the final mark.
Life-like quality
One important aspect of competence-based testing environments is the authenticity or life-like quality of the testing. This means that the testing should represent the future work place as closely as possible with regard to timing, manner of assessment and testing environment. It is also important to use a combination of forms of testing throughout the programme. Competence-based tests could thus be combined with classic forms of testing. For example, a written examination with closed-ended questions could be combined with a portfolio or group project, depending on the pre-specified competences. In addition to combining various forms of testing, the variety of possible forms of testing is increasing. For example, a greater role is being played by ‘alternative forms of testing’, including simulations, observations in actual professional situations, portfolios, self-assessment, peer assessment, co-assessment, skills tests, criterion-based interviews, case-based tests and the assessment of performance during business games. These forms of testing are a reflection of testing in the work place. They focus on higher levels of mastery and encourage in-depth learning in students.
Life-long learning
One common criticism of classic testing is that it is aimed primarily at short-term learning. For example, we sometimes speak of ‘studying, sweating and forgetting’. In competence-based testing, the development of core competences is woven throughout the various modules through the assessment of competences (and sub-competences) of increasing levels of complexity. Integrated testing is also of considerable importance. Classic testing often involves the assessment of relatively separate blocks of knowledge or skills. The expectation is that students will realise the integration or transfer of the knowledge and skills that they have acquired later within their future professional contexts. Alternatively, the integration is expected to be addressed only at a very late stage in the programme (e.g. In the thesis or internship). With competence-based testing, this integration is started at the very beginning of the programme. Integrated testing does not mean that the assessment of knowledge is pushed into the background. Knowledge remains an important element.
Focus on construction
Competence-based testing makes a strong appeal to the students’ focus on construction. Students are expected to elaborate or construct matters on their own instead of merely reproducing course material. In addition, a high level of independence is expected of students. The principle underlying competence-based testing is that students should be supported at first (e.g. through formative testing), so that they can develop sufficient independence or focus on construction. This support is then gradually decreased, and the students accept more (and eventually full) independence (e.g. in preparation for summative testing).
Should every module involve competence-based testing?
In traditional programmes, modules are often relatively separate from each other. In contrast, the modules in competence-based programmes build heavily on each other (e.g. the expansion of learning pathways or a testing policy). A competence-based approach has an impact on the entire curriculum. For example, specific knowledge and skills can be introduced separately and then addressed in an integrated manner in subsequent modules. If only a few modules are designed as competence-based, the impact of and support for the competence-based character will be more limited. Whether a programme is competence-based is thus not a yes/no-question. This is because the extent to which programmes are able to offer competence-based education can differ. Coordination between modules requires a certain level of support, time and resources.
Want to know more?
Davies, J.P. & Pachler, N. (2018). The context of the Connected Curriculum. In J.P. Davies & N. Pachler (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Perspectives from UCL (pp. 3-20). London: UCL IOE Press.
Jessop, Tansy and Hughes, Gwyneth. (2018). Beyond winners and losers in assessment and feedback. In J.P. Davies & N. Pachler (Eds.), Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: Perspectives from UCL (pp. 64-83). London: UCL IOE Press.
Morgan, C., Dunn, L., Parry, S. & O'Reilly, M. (2004), The student assessment handbook : new directions in traditional and online assessment , London: Routledge Falmer.
Norton, L. (2009). Chapter 10, Assessing student learning. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge, & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: enhancing academic practice (3rd ed., pp. 132-149). New York Abingdon: Routledge.
Rowan, B. (2015). Defining Competencies and Outlining Assessment Strategies for CompetencyBased Education Programs. Retrieved from Pearson Education website.
Wakeford, R. (2003). Principles of student assessment. In H. Fry, S. Ketteridge & S. Marshall (Eds.), A handbook for learning and teaching in higher education (2nd ed., pp. 42-61). London: Kogan Page.
Morgan, C., Dunn, L., Parry, S. & O'Reilly, M. (2004), The student assessment handbook : new directions in traditional and online assessment , London: Routledge Falmer.