A Common Language For Competency-Based Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We read with great interest the recent commentary by Rodney and Meyer entitled: “Competency-based education: The need to debunk misconceptions and develop a common language”. 1 Rhoney D.H. Meyer S.M. Competency-Based Education: The Need to Debunk Misconceptions and Develop a Common Language. Am J Pharm Educ. 2024; 88100637https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajpe.2023.100637 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (0) Google Scholar We believe that their commentary is timely, and we agree with most points made by the authors on debunking misconceptions. However, we do not share the view that there is a lack of a common definition of competency and competency-based education itself. We also agree that this field can be confusing, and that the terminology needs to be discussed, shared, and ideally unified to prevent misconceptions or inappropriate usage of vocabulary related to competency-based education (CBE). To that end, several educators have tried to offer their perspective on the issue. Already in 1997, in his book (in French), Guy Le Boterf reflected on the definition of competence and competencies. 2 Le Boterf G. De La Compétence à La Navigation Professionnelle. Les Éditions d’Organisation; Paris, 1997 . Google Scholar Loosely translated, his definition for competence (être compétent) is being able to act in a situation to attain expected outcomes. For competency (avoir des compétences), his definition is: selecting and combining internal (knowledge, skills, attitudes) and external (network, references, databases) resources to act in a professional situation. A concept map of competency was proposed by one of us in 2011 to provide a foundation towards a shared understanding. 3 Crevier F. Binette M.C. Girardot D. Laurier C. Vinet J. Mailhot C. Pharand C. Case Study of Generic Competencies Assessment. Pharm Educ. 2011; 11: 111-115 Google Scholar The map includes internal and external resources as proposed by LeBoterf. The recent definition of competency by the World Health Organization is very close in terms of meaning, but omits external resources: “The abilities of a person to integrate knowledge, skills and attitudes in their performance of tasks in a given context. 4 World Health Organization . Global Competency and Outcomes Framework for Universal Health Coverage.; Published April 2022. 〈https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240034662〉. Accessed May 1, 2024 . Google Scholar Competencies are durable, trainable and, through the expression of behaviors, measurable.” This definition was acknowledged in a recent report of the FIP on the implementation of CBE, in which the definition proposed has a similar meaning. 5 International Pharmaceutical federation (FIP) . Competency-Based Education in Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences: A FIP Handbook to Support Implementation of Competency-Based Education and Training. Published September 2022. 〈https://www.fip.org/file/5338〉. Accessed May 1, 2024 . Google Scholar Indeed, the definition in the FIP handbook is: “competencies are preferably specified as observable abilities, integrating multiple components such as knowledge, skills, values and attitudes, and expressed as actual behaviour.” The same definition was advocated in 2017 by one of us (together with local colleagues) to describe a curriculum implementation process. 6 Koster A. Schalekamp T. Meijerman I. Implementation of Competency-Based Pharmacy Education (CBPE). Pharmacy. 2017; 5: 10https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy5010010 Crossref Google Scholar
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".