Competence based Dutch reform of Higher Education A short overview of model, implementation and results International Workshop Digital Library Education March 2005 Ton de Bruyn

Context Dutch professional universities (strange degrees...see hand-out, non-selective entry for non-specific O-level equivalent) ICT-departments: within Saxion Universities Library Sciences (or: Information Services and Management) are part of the ICT-department) Deans’ conferences of ICT (HBO-I) and ISM however are (still? partly) separate entities At Deventer Business Information Technology and Information Services and Management have jointly implemented a model of competence learning (We are not far away from the cutting edge on implementing competence learning)

Basic models, (not necessarily contradictory) Analytical model of competences (a competence is to some extent reduced to specific aspects of behaviour and defined as a competence[!]) = model used by HBO-I and Saxion at Deventer Easier to have flexible learning routes More difficult to build (integral) assessments Credits are awarded to (parts of) a competence etc Synthetic model of competences (generic behaviour and task specific behaviour is considered an integral part of a competence); seems (partly) to be the concept of Dublin descriptors (nrs 2-5)?Dublin descriptors More difficult to have flexible learning routes Easier to build real life assessments Credits are a bit of a problem etc

Analytical model Generic competence model: HBO-raad (Federation of Dutch Professional Universities) 10 generic competence descriptions: exampleexample Information Services and Management: Focus op Kennis (Focus on Knowledge), new setnew set First model HBO-I: 2000 based on HBO-raad with 12 task specific competence descriptions added (48 sub-competences!! each one being given 5 levels!!!!) set of job descriptions (New model HBO-I: 2004 not yet implemented at Saxion reduced set of 5 specific competence building block descriptions and the 10 HBO-raad generic competence descriptions (now also building blocks) reduced set of 5 NEW!: illustrations of professionals contexts in relation to specific competence building block descriptions!)

Curriculum design 1 BIT: concentric (Spaghetti?) Very detailed (bureaucratic) planning (students) and tracking (staff) ISM: monolythic (Asparagus?) Easier on planning and tracking Difficult (because short) development model for students

Curriculum design 2 Semesters Thematic approach Project for each theme/semester Project breaks down into tasks Tasks relates to (ideally) more than one competence This is the way we (hope to) offer students the possibility to develop integrated competences Support classes (lectures, workshops, laboratories) Support classes can either be synchronous (mostly BIT or a-synchronous (ISM) Competence matrix as design instrument Competence matrix

Student assessment No written tests! Based on individual development plan Individual(ized) assessment (no group evaluation)! Two phased (different assessors!): 1st phase focus on development 2nd phase focus on (evaluative) assessment Based on task performance during project: Through observation (360 degree feedback) Through individual(ized) assessment interviews based on professional artefacts (results of tasks) General interviews on professional development (with specially assigned staff)

The good Seems a pretty good and fast selective instrument (see Dutch non-selective entry: we have to get rid of chaff) Much better staff-student interaction The new HBO-I competences (reduced to 5) seem to offer opportunities to reduce the complexity of our model, especially to students In addition: we are likely to scrap the 5 levels as well To me it seems a pretty good way of educating professionals although...

The bad Very labour intensive! Not all staff is yet comfortable with this type of education and student assessment Level of knowledge can be difficult to assess; yet, why should we want to? (nice discussion topic) Tracking of the development and assessment process is (or: has become) bureaucratic

The ugly? Written test will be re-introduced as part of formative assessment (students can test and discuss their perfomance with assessor); so what? I like knowledge anyway but... Integral competence/assessment approach is a hurdle that we somehow got stuck in Is behavioural/product assessment a stronger proposition than classical knowledge/skills/(attitude) assessment? Or are we just going through the motion? To my mind observation of behaviour is multi-dimensional (competence!) but derived whereas knowledge assessment through written is mono-dimensional but fairly direct

Discussion... 5 minutes!

Discussion is over! Stop talking, Ton!!

Appendix

Dublin bachelor, backback have demonstrated knowledge and understanding in a field of study that builds upon and supersedes their general secondary education, and is typically at a level that, whilst supported by advanced textbooks, includes some aspects that will be informed by knowledge of the forefront of their field of study; can apply their knowledge and understanding in a manner that indicates a professional approach to their work or vocation, and have competences typically demonstrated through devising and sustaining arguments and solving problems within their field of study; have the ability to gather and interpret relevant data (usually within their field of study) to inform judgements that include reflection on relevant social, scientific or ethical issues; can communicate information, ideas, problems and solutions to both specialist and non-specialist audiences; have developed those learning skills that are necessary for them to continue to undertake further study with a high degree of autonomy.

Dublin master have demonstrated knowledge and understanding that is founded upon and extends and/or enhances that typically associated with Bachelor’s level, and that provides a basis or opportunity for originality in developing and/or applying ideas, often within a research context; can apply their knowledge and understanding, and problem solving abilities in new or unfamiliar environments within broader (or multidisciplinary) contexts related to their field of study; have the ability to integrate knowledge and handle complexity, and formulate judgements with incomplete or limited information, but that include reflecting on social and ethical responsibilities linked to the application of their knowledge and judgements; can communicate their conclusions, and the knowledge and rationale underpinning these, to specialist and non-specialist audiences clearly and unambiguously; have the learning skills to allow them to continue to study in a manner that may be largely self-directed or autonomous.

Generic ICT competence building blocks (old/new) A1Broadly-based professionalism A2Multidisciplinary integration A3Scientific and non-scientific application A4Transfer and broad usability A5Creativity and complexity of action A6Problem-oriented approach A7Methodical and reflective reasoning and action A8Social and communicative skills A9Basic qualification for management positions A10Sense of social responsibility back

Task specific competence building blocks for ICT (new) B1Analysis B2Advice B3Design B4Implementation B5Maintenance back

Task specific competence building blocks for ISM (new) Information resources Retrieval Classification systems Information collation Management information Information and knowledge exchange Information and business processes Systems development Information and knowledge policy back

Competence matrix, sample, backback competenc e B1B2B3B4B5 A1P1 A2 P4 P5 A3 P3 A4 P4 P3 A5 P4P3, P2 P4 A6P2 A7P1 P6 A8P1 P6 A9 P5 A10 P4