return to Donald F.
Larsson’s home page
A COMPETENCY-BASED APPROACH
TO THE TRANSFER CURRICULUM
Donald F. Larsson,
Chair
Department of English
Note: The
following is a revised version of a presentation given at the Spring 2003 Conference of the Minnesota Council of Teachers
of English,
1.
Preface:
Excerpts from the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum
2.
What
is a Competency-Based Transfer Approach?
3.
Why is it needed?
a.
Problems
with the current Minnesota Transfer Curriculum
b.
Advantages
of a new approach
5.
What
is needed to implement it?
6.
What
is the relevance of this system to English Composition?
7.
What
is needed to get started?
EXCERPTS FROM THE
http://www.mntransfer.org/GuidesMNTCurr/MNTC.pdf
RATIONALE for the MTC:
·
Past articulation agreements no longer serve needs of
transfer students
·
Problems created by:
o
“confusion
caused by too many transfer agreements”
o
“the lack of
agreements between four-year institutions”
o
“too little
attention to the quality and coherence of general education for those students
who attend more than a single institution”
·
Problems compounded by:
o
“continued growth
in the number of college students”
o
“increasing
variety in patterns of attendance”
·
“Therefore, the
policies and agreements developed for the 1980s are in need of revision.”
Comments:
The MTC is,
in a number of ways, a large improvement on the use of past individual
articulation and transfer agreements among campuses, but it is still
incomplete. There is still too much
confusion in the system and still-existing articulation agreements. Growth in the number of college students (as
a percentage of graduating high school seniors) is likely to continue. The Internet and other means of education
delivery have only compounded the “variety in patterns of attendance.”
Question:
Is a policy developed for
the 1990s now also in need of revision?
2. What is a Competency-Based Transfer Model?
Competencies:
·
Based
on what students should be able to do,
not what courses they have taken
·
Competencies
are minimal standards for a
particular transfer area
·
Competencies
are not directly measured or assured through grades
·
Competencies
are demonstrations of what students have learned and the level at which they
can demonstrate that knowledge
Certain
competencies are already embedded in the Minnesota Transfer Curriculum:
Emphasis Areas of the
(See http://www.mntransfer.org/GuidesMNTCurr/MNTC.pdf )
1. Communication (including writing
and speaking)
2. Critical Thinking
3. Natural Sciences
4. Mathematical/Logical Reasoning
5. History and the Social and Behavioral Sciences
6. The Humanities and Fine Arts
7. Human Diversity
8. Global Perspectives
9. Ethical and Civic Responsibility
10. People and the Environment
Competencies for Area 1. Communication
Students will be able to
a. understand/demonstrate the writing
and speaking processes through invention, organization, drafting, revision,
editing and presentation.
b. participate effectively in groups
with emphasis on listening, critical and reflective thinking, and responding.
c. locate, evaluate, and synthesize in
a responsible manner material from diverse sources and points of view.
d. select appropriate communication
choices for specific audiences.
e. construct logical and coherent
arguments.
f. use authority, point-of-view, and
individual voice and style in their writing and speaking.
g. employ syntax and usage appropriate
to academic disciplines and the professional world.
3. Why Is a Competency-Based Model Needed?
A. Problems with the
1. Transfers are made on the basis of
the entire Transfer Curriculum as a package or as individual courses that
fulfill Areas 1-10
Result: Emphasis is still on the
basis on the number of classes or credits the student has taken in a given
area, not the competencies themselves
2. Only 51% of competencies need to be
met in any area for a course to be accepted
Result: nearly half the listed
competencies can be ignored. For example, students could
theoretically ignore Competency 1c, which addresses research abilities in
written and spoken communication, and claim that their Communication Area in
the MTC had been fulfilled.
3. All courses must be accepted if the
Transfer Curriculum has been completed
Result: Acceptance of entire package
does not specify which competencies
have been completed in any area. As
above, there is no guarantee of particular learning outcomes (knowledge,
skills, etc.) that the student is able to demonstrate.
4. The Transfer Curriculum does not
speak to the level of mastery that the student can demonstrate.
Result: Passing grades in courses
that are transferred that do not accurately reflect what students have learned
or are actually able to do (level of mastery)
5. Emphasis on courses that fulfill Transfer Areas, not the competencies themselves
Result: Transfer courses that are
uneven in equivalence and a process that is still far from “seamless”
3. Why Is a Competency-Based Model Needed?
B. Potential
Advantages
1. Emphasis for students and faculty is
on what has been learned, not
numbers of credits or courses
2. Grades may be based on competencies but
may sill take other factors into account
3. Students have a more accurate
indication for themselves of what they have actually learned
4. Receiving institutions have a more
accurate indication of how well-prepared students are for higher levels of
study
5. Programs in receiving institutions
know if students can demonstrate prerequisite skills and knowledge. Learning outcomes, not course titles or
credits, determine if students have met prerequisites for further study.
6. Sending institutions can use results
to argue for new curricula and additional resources that will aid student
learning
7. Need for individual articulation
agreements and meetings among programs is reduced
8. Transfer between systems (MnSCU and
U of M) is facilitated
9. Process supports assessment of
student learning, program review, and campus re-accreditation by North Central
Association Higher Learning Commission, especially under their new criteria:
http://www.ncahigherlearningcommission.org/restructuring/newcriteria/NewCriteria.pdf
See especially Criteria 3 and 4
10.
Responsibility
for fulfilling competencies shifts to the student
11.
Academic
integrity is enhanced
12.
Campus
autonomy is preserved while system-wide standards are established
13.
At worst, it’s no worse than what we
have now!
4. How Would a Competency-Based Model WorK?
1. Campuses and programs would review
general education curricula for compatibility with the Transfer Curriculum
Areas
2. Competencies in individual courses
on individual campuses would be identified
3. Minimal standards for each
competency within the MTC would be identified by the programs
4. Existing and developing assessment
processes would be used to measure effectiveness of courses and integrity of
standards
5. Students would be given a (paper or
web-based) form, kept by the school administration, that lists how the
competencies have been fulfilled.
6. Form would go to receiving institution,
as verification of student’s learning and for consultation by individual
programs.
7. Advisors at receiving institution
help students determine how they can fulfill any deficiencies in the
competencies with courses at their campus
8. Forms provide data for departments
to use in assessment and program review
9. Forms provide data for institutions
to use as measures of assessment in re-accreditation and demonstration of
performance to Board, legislators, etc.
5. What Is Needed to Implement a
Competency-Based Transfer Model?
1. Review of the Transfer Curriculum
competencies
Is number of competencies efficient?
Should some competencies in an area be
required, not optional?
Example in Area 1:
Should speaking and writing components be separated? Should research component be an absolute
requirement?
2. Baseline agreement on minimal
level of mastery for each competency
Agreement of what constitutes “adequate” performance in each
competency in General Education
Example in Area 1e (argumentation):
At a minimum, students should be able to present an
appropriately narrowed topic (even if not terribly original), frame a coherent
thesis (even if not terribly compelling, organize support (even if not terribly
fluid), and provide evidence (even if not especially sophisticated)
3. Institutional review of general
education courses
Find competencies within General Education curriculum that
support the competencies in a particular area, whether closely linked to the
MTC or not
4. Institutional assignment of
competencies to courses
Example in a Freshman Composition course: “This course
fulfills competencies 1a, 1c, 1e, 1f and 1g”
5. State-wide forms (paper or web-based)
to track student achievement
6. Process on each campus to
evaluate the student’s transfer curriculum
6. What is the Relevance of This System to English Composition?
1. System-wide discussions are about standards, not courses, credits or
methodology. Campuses agree on what a
student ought to be able to demonstrate after taking a composition course. Clarifies expectations for faculty in other
disciplines and non-English Writing Intensive courses.
2. Does not require all campuses and
all general education courses to be the same.
Students can learn and demonstrate competencies in a variety of ways.
3. Allows emphasis on appropriate
levels of performance at each campus in each course, from remedial to advanced. Levels of
mastery are established that indicate minimal acceptable levels of performance
for students.
4. Provides factual data to argue for
necessary resources. Departments can
have basis to argue for smaller classes, more faculty, more technology, etc.
5. Provides database to measure student
performance and needs in relation to other courses and programs of study. Other department and disciplines have a
firmer idea of what expectations to have for students who have taken
composition classes.
7. What Is Needed to Get Started?
Discussion!
One major
obstacle to implementing this suggested approach is that it requires a major
shift in thinking by faculty, students, administrators, and the public
(including the Legislature). For all the
talk of “student-centered learning “ and “assessment of student learning
outcomes” in the last decade, most people still think of credits and grades as
the measures of student learning.
MnSCU will
have to be willing to advance and promote such discussions. Individual departments will have to be
willing to discuss competencies and outcomes among their own faculty and with
other institutions, from 2-year schools to the state universities to the
This
document is one small attempt to get some discussion started.
Please send
your thoughts to donald.larsson@mnsu.edu