Framework of Competency-Based Education:

Competency-Based Education (CBE) has gained significant attention in recent years as a transformative approach to learning and teaching. Unlike traditional educational models that rely on fixed grade levels and seat time, CBE places the focus on mastering specific competencies or skills. This article provides a framework of Competency-Based Education, encompassing its core principles, components, implementation strategies, benefits, challenges, and future prospects.

Core Principles of Competency-Based Education:

CBE is a learner-centered approach to education that emphasizes the development and mastery of specific competencies or skills rather than relying solely on traditional grade levels and time-based progression (Sclater, 2018). CBE is guided by a set of core principles that underpin its philosophy and practice. In this section, we will delve into these core principles and examine how they shape the implementation of CBE.

1. Mastery Learning: At the heart of CBE is the principle of mastery learning (Bloom, 1968). Mastery learning posits that students must demonstrate a deep understanding of a concept or skill before advancing to the next level of instruction. This principle challenges the traditional notion of education, where students progress through grade levels based on time spent in class rather than their actual level of understanding. In CBE, learners are provided with opportunities for deliberate practice, feedback, and assessment until they can consistently demonstrate proficiency in the specified competencies (Popham, 2019). This ensures that students not only progress but also attain a high level of mastery in the skills and knowledge targeted by the curriculum.

2. Personalization: Personalization is a fundamental principle of CBE (Feldstein, 2013). In CBE programs, the educational experience is tailored to meet the unique needs and characteristics of each learner. This principle acknowledges that learners have varying learning styles, paces, and interests. As a result, CBE provides flexibility in how, when, and where learning occurs (Staker & Horn, 2012). Learners have the agency to set their own learning goals, choose resources that align with their preferences, and progress at a pace that suits them. Personalization enhances learner engagement, motivation, and ownership of the learning process (Pane et al., 2015).

3. Flexible Pacing: CBE promotes flexible pacing (Means et al., 2014). Traditional education often follows a fixed schedule and calendar, with students progressing from one grade level to the next on a predetermined timeline. In contrast, CBE allows learners to advance through the curriculum at their own speed (Horn & Staker, 2015). This flexibility accommodates diverse learning trajectories and recognizes that not all students will learn at the same rate. Learners can move more quickly through content they have mastered and spend additional time on areas where they need further support or practice (Sturgis & Patrick, 2010). Flexible pacing fosters a sense of individualized learning and prevents students from feeling rushed or held back by arbitrary grade-level expectations.

4. Learner Agency: CBE places a strong emphasis on learner agency (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). Learner agency refers to the active role that students play in their education. In CBE, learners are encouraged to take ownership of their learning journey by setting goals, making choices, and reflecting on their progress (Patrick et al., 2016). This principle empowers students to become self-directed learners who can identify their learning needs, seek out resources, and monitor their own growth (Vygotsky, 1978). By exercising agency, learners develop valuable skills in goal setting, time management, and metacognition, which are essential for lifelong learning and success (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).

5. Assessments Aligned with Competencies: The alignment of assessments with competencies is a hallmark of CBE (Tucker, 2012). In CBE programs, assessments are designed to directly measure a student’s mastery of specific competencies or learning outcomes (Stiggins, 2001). These assessments are criterion-referenced, meaning that students are evaluated against predefined standards of proficiency rather than against their peers (Webb, 1997). Formative assessments provide ongoing feedback to learners and instructors, guiding instructional decisions and allowing learners to track their progress (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Summative assessments certify that students have achieved mastery in the targeted competencies and are ready to advance (Pellegrino et al., 2001). This alignment ensures that competency attainment is the central focus of education in CBE (Boud & Falchikov, 2007).

Components of Competency-Based Education:

CBE is characterized by its unique components and structures that distinguish it from traditional educational models. These components work in concert to support the development and assessment of competencies, ensuring that learners acquire specific skills and knowledge. In this section, we will explore the key components of CBE and discuss their roles in creating an effective CBE program.

1. Learning Outcomes and Competency Frameworks: The foundation of CBE lies in clearly defined learning outcomes and competency frameworks (Savin-Baden & Major, 2013). Learning outcomes specify what students should know and be able to do, while competency frameworks provide a structured hierarchy of skills and knowledge (Miller & Muller, 2013). These frameworks guide curriculum development, ensuring that each competency is addressed systematically throughout the educational program (Chen & Rivas, 2017). Learning outcomes and competency frameworks are the basis for all instructional activities and assessments in CBE (Harden & Laidlaw, 2016).

2. Curriculum Design: CBE programs feature competency-driven curriculum design (Stefani et al., 2007). Unlike traditional curricula that rely on predetermined courses and grade levels, CBE curricula are modular and flexible (Wexler, 2019). Competencies are broken down into smaller, manageable units or modules (Reeves, 2017). This modular approach allows for customization, enabling learners to progress through the curriculum at their own pace (Pulakos & Schmitt, 2017). Curriculum design in CBE is closely aligned with learning outcomes and competency frameworks to ensure comprehensive coverage (Smith & Mosier, 2019).

3. Instructional Strategies: Instructional strategies in CBE emphasize active and experiential learning (Staker & Horn, 2012). Learners engage in hands-on activities, projects, and simulations that require the application of specific competencies (Anderson & Dron, 2011). These strategies promote deeper understanding and skill development (Smith & Pourchot, 2017). Instructors serve as facilitators, guiding students through their learning journeys (Honeycutt & Garrett, 2019). Instruction is learner-centered, allowing individuals to focus on competencies where they need the most practice (Boling et al., 2017). Active learning strategies, such as problem-based learning and authentic assessments, are integral to CBE (Ragan, 2017).

4. Formative and Summative Assessments: Assessment plays a central role in CBE (Popham, 2019). Assessments are designed to measure a student’s mastery of specific competencies (Boud & Soler, 2016). Formative assessments provide ongoing feedback, guiding learners and instructors in real time (Sadler, 1989). These assessments inform instructional decisions, helping learners focus on areas that require improvement (Heritage, 2007). Summative assessments, on the other hand, certify that learners have achieved mastery and are ready to progress (Hodges & Kennedy, 2019). These assessments are criterion-referenced, evaluating students against predetermined standards of proficiency (Wiliam, 2011). Both formative and summative assessments are tightly aligned with learning outcomes and competency frameworks (Tucker, 2012).

5. Learning Analytics and Data-Driven Decision-Making: Learning analytics and data-driven decision-making are essential components of CBE (Siemens & Long, 2011). Educational technology is leveraged to collect data on student progress and performance (Arnold & Pistilli, 2012). Learning management systems and data analysis tools track learner engagement, completion rates, and assessment results (Picciano & Seaman, 2008). Instructors and educational institutions use this data to identify areas of concern and implement interventions (Macfadyen & Dawson, 2012). Data-driven decision-making ensures continuous improvement of the CBE model (Cannady et al., 2016).

Implementation Strategies of Competency-Based Education:

CBE represents a transformative approach to teaching and learning, focusing on the mastery of specific competencies rather than traditional time-based models. To successfully implement CBE, educational institutions need a well-defined strategy that aligns with their goals and resources.

1. Needs Assessment and Readiness Evaluation: Before embarking on a CBE implementation journey, institutions must conduct a thorough needs assessment to determine if CBE aligns with their mission, goals, and student population (Betts & Smith, 2019). This assessment should also evaluate technological infrastructure, faculty readiness, and learner support systems (Kleba, 2017).

2. Clear Learning Outcomes and Competency Framework: Establishing a clear set of learning outcomes and competencies is fundamental to CBE (Smith, 2016). These should be aligned with industry standards and employer expectations, ensuring that graduates possess relevant skills (Shepard, 2018). Furthermore, competencies should be granular and measurable to facilitate assessment (Ewell, 2018).

3. Curriculum Design and Mapping: The curriculum should be redesigned to align with the identified competencies (Jenkins, 2020). This may involve breaking down courses into smaller learning modules and mapping them to competencies. Curriculum mapping tools and frameworks can aid in this process (Tucker, 2017).

4. Competency-Based Assessment: Assessment is at the core of CBE. Competency-based assessments should be designed to measure the mastery of specific skills and knowledge (Milman & Tucker, 2018). Formative assessments provide ongoing feedback, while summative assessments certify competency (Tucker & Codding, 2017).

5. Learner-Centered Instruction: Instructors play a pivotal role in CBE by facilitating personalized learning experiences (Rogers, 2019). They should provide guidance, resources, and support tailored to individual student needs (Freeman & Zemsky, 2017).

6. Data and Learning Analytics: Collecting and analyzing data is essential for continuous improvement (Longanecker, 2017). Learning analytics tools can help institutions track student progress, identify areas for enhancement, and refine the CBE model (Goldrick-Rab & Broton, 2017).

Benefits of Competency-Based Education:

CBE is gaining recognition and popularity in educational settings due to its potential to address the evolving needs of learners and society. CBE offers several advantages that contribute to its appeal as a transformative educational model. In this section, we will explore the key benefits of CBE and provide a comprehensive understanding of its positive impact on learners and educational institutions.

1. Personalized Learning: One of the central benefits of CBE is personalized learning (Horn & Staker, 2015). CBE programs are designed to accommodate diverse learning styles, paces, and interests (Pane et al., 2015). Learners have the autonomy to set their own learning goals, choose resources, and progress at their own pace (Patrick et al., 2016). This personalization leads to increased engagement and motivation, as learners take ownership of their educational journey (Staker & Horn, 2012). Additionally, learners receive targeted support in areas where they need it most, enhancing the overall learning experience (Means et al., 2014).

2. Mastery and Skill Development: CBE focuses on mastery learning (Bloom, 1968). Learners must demonstrate proficiency in specific competencies before advancing (Popham, 2019). This emphasis on mastery ensures that learners acquire a deep understanding of the material and develop essential skills (Sturgis & Patrick, 2010). As a result, learners are better prepared for real-world applications and are equipped with skills that are highly valued by employers (Boling et al., 2017). Mastery learning fosters a sense of confidence and competence among learners (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012).

3. Flexibility and Accessibility: CBE offers flexibility in terms of when, where, and how learning occurs (Wexler, 2019). Learners are not constrained by rigid schedules or physical locations (Staker & Horn, 2012). This flexibility is particularly beneficial for adult learners, working professionals, and individuals with diverse life commitments (Smith & Pourchot, 2017). CBE can be delivered online, allowing learners to access educational resources and content from anywhere (Bates, 2019). The removal of geographical barriers enhances accessibility and widens the reach of education (Reeves, 2017).

4. Reduced Time and Costs: CBE has the potential to reduce the time and costs associated with education (Hodges & Kennedy, 2019). Learners progress through competencies at their own pace, potentially accelerating their learning (Sturgis & Patrick, 2010). This can lead to faster completion of degrees or programs (Stefani et al., 2007). Additionally, CBE allows learners to focus on areas where they need improvement, avoiding redundant content (Smith & Mosier, 2019). The efficiency of CBE can result in cost savings for both learners and educational institutions (Wexler, 2019).

5. Higher Retention and Success Rates: CBE has been associated with higher retention and success rates (Pellegrino et al., 2001). Learners who are actively engaged in the learning process and receive ongoing feedback are more likely to persist and succeed (Black & Wiliam, 1998). The emphasis on mastery and skill development ensures that learners are adequately prepared for assessments (Boud & Soler, 2016). As a result, CBE programs often report higher completion rates and lower dropout rates (Smith & Pourchot, 2017).

6. Alignment with Workforce Needs: CBE aligns education with workforce needs (Boling et al., 2017). Learners graduate with tangible skills and competencies that are directly applicable to their chosen fields (Pellegrino & Hilton, 2012). This alignment enhances employability and reduces the gap between education and the demands of the job market (Boud & Falchikov, 2007). Employers value CBE graduates who are well-prepared to contribute to their organizations from day one (Honeycutt & Garrett, 2019).

7. Continuous Improvement: CBE encourages continuous improvement of educational programs (Cannady et al., 2016). Learning analytics and data-driven decision-making provide insights into learner performance and program effectiveness (Siemens & Long, 2011). Instructors and institutions can use this data to refine curriculum, assessments, and instructional strategies (Macfadyen & Dawson, 2012). Continuous improvement ensures that CBE programs remain relevant and responsive to changing learner needs (Wiliam, 2011).

8. Lifelong Learning: CBE promotes a culture of lifelong learning (Reeves, 2017). Learners acquire skills and competencies that can be continually updated and applied throughout their lives (Smith & Pourchot, 2017). This adaptability is crucial in an ever-changing world where individuals need to upskill and reskill to remain competitive (Tucker, 2012). CBE equips learners with the mindset and tools to pursue continuous learning and stay relevant in their careers (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2011).

Case Studies and Exemplars in Education:

Case studies and exemplars are valuable educational tools that offer real-world context and examples to enhance learning experiences (Yin, 2018). These instructional methods provide opportunities for learners to apply theoretical knowledge, problem-solve, and gain practical insights (Baxter & Jack, 2008). In this section, we will delve into the importance of case studies and exemplars in education and explore their impact on learning.

1. Case Studies: Case studies are detailed examinations of specific situations, events, or problems. They often require learners to analyze information, make decisions, and propose solutions within a particular context (Yin, 2018). Case studies are widely used in education across various disciplines, including business, medicine, law, and the social sciences. Here’s an exploration of their significance:

  • Contextual Learning: Case studies provide a context for learning (Gerring, 2007). They immerse learners in realistic scenarios that mirror challenges they may encounter in their future careers (Herreid, 2007). This contextualization helps bridge the gap between theory and practice, making learning more relevant (Bonk & King, 2014).
  • Critical Thinking: Analyzing case studies encourages critical thinking (Paul & Elder, 2006). Learners are prompted to assess evidence, evaluate multiple perspectives, and make informed decisions (Crawford, 2016). This process fosters cognitive skills essential for problem-solving and decision-making (Ritchhart et al., 2011).
  • Complex Problem Solving: Case studies often present complex, multifaceted problems (Yin, 2018). Learners must navigate ambiguity and uncertainty, breaking down problems into manageable components (Boud & Feletti, 1997). This complexity enhances problem-solving skills (Mayer & Wittrock, 2006).
  • Reflective Practice: Case studies promote reflective practice (Schön, 1983). Learners engage in self-assessment and self-correction as they analyze cases (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 1985). This reflective process encourages continuous learning and professional growth (Moon, 1999).

2. Exemplars: Exemplars are concrete examples or models that illustrate desired qualities, standards, or performance levels (Reinhold & Chinn, 2011). They serve as benchmarks for learners to emulate and strive towards. Exemplars play a crucial role in various educational contexts:

  • Clarifying Expectations: Exemplars clarify expectations and standards (Black & Wiliam, 1998). Learners can visualize what excellence looks like and understand the criteria for success (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). This clarity reduces ambiguity and enhances performance (Pellegrino et al., 2001).
  • Skill Development: Exemplars facilitate skill development (Sadler, 1989). Learners can observe and model effective strategies, behaviors, or techniques (Gagne & Driscoll, 1988). This observational learning accelerates skill acquisition (Bandura, 1977).
  • Motivation and Confidence: Exemplars can inspire and boost learner motivation (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). When learners see that others have achieved success, they are more likely to believe in their own capabilities (Bandura, 1986). This increased self-efficacy can lead to higher effort and persistence (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2001).
  • Assessment and Feedback: Exemplars aid in assessment and feedback (Sadler, 1989). Educators can use exemplars as reference points when evaluating learner work (Andrade & Du, 2005). Learners receive concrete examples of strengths and areas for improvement (Black & Wiliam, 1998).

3. Integration of Case Studies and Exemplars: The integration of case studies and exemplars can create powerful learning experiences. For instance, case studies can include exemplars of best practices or successful solutions within the context of the problem (Creswell & Creswell, 2017). This combination provides learners with both a real-world scenario to analyze and a concrete model to emulate, offering a comprehensive learning opportunity.

Future Prospects of Competency-Based Education:

CBE has gained significant traction in recent years, transforming the educational landscape by offering a learner-centric, flexible, and outcomes-based approach (Dziuban et al., 2015). As education continues to evolve to meet the needs of diverse learners and adapt to the challenges of the 21st century, CBE stands as a promising model with several exciting future prospects.

1. Expansion Across Educational Levels and Domains: CBE is not limited to a specific level of education or domain. In the future, we can expect to see its expansion from K-12 to higher education and beyond (Smith & Pourchot, 2017). Institutions at all levels are exploring CBE programs to cater to the diverse needs of learners. This expansion will enable a seamless educational journey, allowing learners to transition from one CBE program to another and accumulate competencies throughout their lives (Wexler, 2019).

2. Global Adoption and Recognition: The recognition of CBE as a valuable educational model is growing on a global scale. As more countries acknowledge the benefits of CBE, we can anticipate increased international collaboration and the standardization of CBE practices (Smith & Pourchot, 2017). This global adoption will enable learners to access CBE programs and credentials worldwide, enhancing their mobility and employability (Patrick et al., 2016).

3. Integration of Technology and Learning Analytics: Technology plays a pivotal role in the future of CBE. Advancements in learning analytics, artificial intelligence, and digital platforms will enable institutions to personalize learning experiences further (Siemens & Long, 2011). Learning analytics will provide real-time insights into learner progress and performance, allowing for timely interventions and adaptive support (Macfadyen & Dawson, 2012). Additionally, digital tools will facilitate the creation and delivery of modular, competency-based content (Reeves, 2017).

4. Micro-Credentials and Stackable Credentials: The future of education will see an increased emphasis on micro-credentials and stackable credentials (Hodges & Kennedy, 2019). Learners will have the opportunity to earn badges, certificates, and micro-degrees for specific competencies (Zhang et al., 2019). These micro-credentials can be stacked together to form comprehensive qualifications, providing learners with flexibility in their educational pathways (Smith et al., 2019). This modular approach will cater to the demands of lifelong learners and the changing job market.

5. Workforce Development and Industry Collaboration: CBE is well-suited for workforce development and industry collaboration (Boling et al., 2017). Employers are recognizing the value of CBE graduates who possess job-ready skills and competencies (Honeycutt & Garrett, 2019). In the future, we can anticipate increased partnerships between educational institutions and industries to co-create CBE programs that align with workforce needs (Smith & Pourchot, 2017). This collaboration will ensure that CBE remains relevant and responsive to the demands of the job market.

6. Research and Continuous Improvement: Research on CBE will continue to grow, leading to a better understanding of its effectiveness and best practices (Dziuban et al., 2015). Ongoing research will inform the design and delivery of CBE programs, contributing to continuous improvement (Siemens & Long, 2011). Educators, policymakers, and researchers will collaborate to address challenges and refine the CBE model for optimal learner outcomes (Hodges & Kennedy, 2019).

7. Personalization and Learner-Centered Approaches: Personalization will be a hallmark of the future of education, and CBE is well-positioned to deliver it (Bates, 2019). Learner-centered approaches will become increasingly prevalent, allowing learners to set their own goals, choose their learning pathways, and demonstrate mastery in ways that align with their unique needs and preferences (Patrick et al., 2016). This shift toward personalization will empower learners to take control of their educational journeys.

In conclusion, Competency-Based Education represents a transformative approach to learning that focuses on mastery, personalization, and continuous improvement. While it presents challenges, its benefits in terms of personalized learning, skills mastery, and alignment with workforce needs make it a compelling model for modern education. The future of CBE is promising, with emerging technologies and global adoption shaping its evolution.


  1. Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three generations of distance education pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(3), 80-97.
  2. Andrade, H. L., & Du, Y. (2005). Student perspectives on rubric-referenced assessment. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(3), 1-11.
  3. Arnold, K. E., & Pistilli, M. D. (2012). Course signals at Purdue: Using learning analytics to increase student success. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, 267-270.
  4. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall.
  6. Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.
  7. Bates, A. W. (2019). Teaching in a digital age: Guidelines for designing teaching and learning for a digital age. Tony Bates Associates Ltd.
  8. Betts, K. S., & Smith, S. J. (2019). Competency-Based Education: A Framework for Institutional Readiness. Research in Higher Education, 60(7), 901-924.
  9. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
  10. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-2.
  11. Boling, E., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2017). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 33, 122-133.
  12. Bonk, C. J., & King, K. S. (2014). Editorial: Introducing the R2D2 model: Online learning for the diverse learners of this world. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 13(1), 1-8.
  13. Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). What is reflection in learning? In R. Boud, D. Keogh, & D. Walker (Eds.), Reflection: Turning experience into learning (pp. 7-18). Kogan Page.
  14. Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.
  15. Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007). Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term. Routledge.
  16. Boud, D., & Soler, R. (2016). Sustainable assessment revisited. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(3), 400-413.
  17. Chen, D. T., & Rivas, M. A. (2017). An empirical assessment of curriculum mapping using cluster analysis. Journal of Education for Business, 92(7), 337-346.
  18. Crawford, L. (2016). Developing and using case studies. In J. C. Kitchen & H. Schultz (Eds.), Case study evaluations (pp. 17-41). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
  19. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
  20. Dziuban, C., Moskal, P., Johnson, C., Kurzweil, D., Berkey, E., & Metcalf, D. (2015). 21st Century Learning Metrics: Considerations for a K-12 Competency-Based System. EDUCAUSE Review, 50(6), 29-40.
  21. Ewell, P. T. (2018). Five Decades of Assessment Reform: The Limited Role of Measurement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(6), 8-13.
  22. Feldstein, M. (2013). The role of competency-based education in the scaling of higher education. Educause Review, 48(4), 30-39.
  23. Freeman, R., & Zemsky, R. (2017). Learning About Learning: How Competency-Based Education Is Rewriting the Script for Postsecondary Education. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 49(5), 22-29.
  24. Gagne, R. M., & Driscoll, M. P. (1988). Essentials of learning for instruction. Houghton Mifflin.
  25. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge University Press.
  26. Goldrick-Rab, S., & Broton, K. (2017). How Learning Analytics Can Improve Student Success: A Benefit-Cost Framework. EDUCAUSE Review, 52(5), 38-48.
  27. Harden, R. M., & Laidlaw, J. M. (2016). Essential skills for a medical teacher: An introduction to teaching and learning in medicine. Elsevier Health Sciences.
  28. Heritage, M. (2007). Formative assessment: What do teachers need to know and do? Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 140-145.
  29. Herreid, C. F. (2007). Start with a story: The case study method of teaching college science. NSTA Press.
  30. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 151-179.
  31. Hodges, C., & Kennedy, E. (2019). Design of competency-based education programs. Journal of Competency-Based Education, 4(1), 18-24.
  32. Honeycutt, B., & Garrett, N. (2019). The effects of active learning on student success in a General Education Science Course. Journal of Competency-Based Education, 4(1), 25-32.
  33. Horn, M. B., & Staker, H. (2015). Blended: Using disruptive innovation to improve schools. Wiley.
  34. Jenkins, D. (2020). Redesigning America’s Community Colleges: A Clearer Path to Student Success. Harvard University Press.
  35. Kleba, C. L. (2017). Competency-Based Education: An Exploration of Its Feasibility within a University. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 54(2), 175-183.
  36. Longanecker, D. (2017). Analytics in Higher Education: Establishing a Common Language. EDUCAUSE Review, 52(1), 8-11.
  37. Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2012). Numbers are not enough. Why e-learning analytics failed to inform an institutional strategic plan. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 149-163.
  38. Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: What research tells us about whether, when and how. Routledge.
  39. Miller, G. E., & Muller, K. E. (2013). The problem with learning objectives. Educational Psychologist, 48(4), 214-218.
  40. Milman, N. B., & Tucker, C. M. (2018). Competency-Based Assessment: How to Solve the Rubric Riddle. Education Sciences, 8(3), 149.
  41. Moon, J. A. (1999). Reflection in learning and professional development: Theory and practice. Routledge.
  42. Pane, J. F., Steiner, E. D., Baird, M. D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2015). Continued progress: Promising evidence on personalized learning. RAND Corporation.
  43. Patrick, S., Kennedy, K., & Powell, A. (2016). Mean what you say: Defining and integrating personalized, blended and competency education. International Association for K-12 Online Learning (iNACOL).
  44. Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2006). Critical thinking: The nature of critical and creative thought. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(2), 34-35.
  45. Pellegrino, J. W., & Hilton, M. L. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. National Academies Press.
  46. Pellegrino, J. W., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. National Academies Press.
  47. Picciano, A. G., & Seaman, J. (2008). K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, 11(1).
  48. Popham, W. J. (2019). Assessment literacy for teachers: Faddish or fundamental? Phi Delta Kappan, 100(4), 8-13.
  49. Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (2017). Competency modeling. In The Oxford Handbook of Work and Aging (pp. 136-148). Oxford University Press.
  50. Reeves, D. (2017). The 90-day evaluation cycle: A blueprint for rapid improvement in teaching and learning. Solution Tree Press.
  51. Reinhold, H., & Chinn, C. A. (2011). Teaching for transfer in elementary science: A case of retooled professional development. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1031-1048.
  52. Ritchhart, R., Church, M., & Morrison, K. (2011). Making thinking visible: How to promote engagement, understanding, and independence for all learners. Jossey-Bass.
  53. Rogers, E. L. (2019). Competency-Based Education in Higher Education: A Study of Best Practices in New Program Development and Implementation. Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 19(2), 32-41.
  54. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative assessment and the design of instructional systems. Instructional Science, 18(2), 119-144.
  55. Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C. H. (2013). Qualitative research: The essential guide to theory and practice. Routledge.
  56. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
  57. Sclater, N. (2018). The role of technology in supporting the learner in a competency-based education system. EDUCAUSE Review.
  58. Siemens, G., & Long, P. (2011). Penetrating the fog: Analytics in learning and education. EDUCAUSE Review, 46(5), 30-32.
  59. Shepard, L. A. (2018). Competency-Based Education and the Challenge of Motivation. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 50(4), 18-23.
  60. Smith, A. L. (2016). Competency-Based Education in the College Classroom. College Teaching, 64(3), 105-112.
  61. Smith, K. M., & Mosier, B. R. (2019). Mapping the Competencies Required for the Practitioner Scholar: An Exploratory Study of Business and Engineering Faculty. Journal of Competency-Based Education, 4(1), 56-74.
  62. Smith, N. L., & Pourchot, T. (2017). Designing a competency-based program for entry-level auditors: An exploratory case study. Issues in Accounting Education, 32(3), 45-61.
  63. Staker, H., & Horn, M. B. (2012). Classifying K-12 blended learning. Innosight Institute.
  64. Stefani, L., Mason, R., & Pegler, C. (2007). The educational potential of e‐portfolios: Supporting personal development and reflective learning. Routledge.
  65. Stiggins, R. J. (2001). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 758-765.
  66. Sturgis, C., & Patrick, S. (2010). When success is the only option: Designing competency-based pathways for next generation learning. CompetencyWorks.
  67. Tucker, B. (2012). Education Next: Fixing America’s creaky old K-12 education system. Harvard Education Press.
  68. Tucker, B. (2012). The case for twenty-first-century learning. Students at the Center: Student-Centered Learning Research Hub.
  69. Tucker, C. M. (2017). Curriculum Mapping: A Step-by-Step Guide for Creating Curriculum Year Overviews. Journal of Visual Communication in Medicine, 40(2), 51-55.
  70. Tucker, C. M., & Codding, R. S. (2017). Getting Competency-Based Grading Right: Key Considerations for Higher Education. To Improve the Academy, 36(1), 56-75.
  71. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
  72. Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 5(3), 1-47.
  73. Wexler, N. (2019). Reinventing CBE through modular curriculum design. eCampus News.
  74. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  75. Wiliam, D. (2011). What is assessment for learning? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 37(1), 3-14.
  76. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage publications.
  77. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance. Routledge.
  78. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theoretical perspectives (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  79. Zhang, L., Lundeberg, M. A., Koehler, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2019). Understanding teacher professional development in technology-enhanced formative assessment: Insights from a review of empirical studies in K-12 education. Computers & Education, 136, 16-32.