MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117315536 · doi:10.56397/jare.2025.11.03

From Knowledge to Competence: Educational Purpose in Competency-Based Education

2025· article· W7117315536 on OpenAlexaff
Nathaniel Everett

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advanced Research in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentNormativeRationalityRationalization (economics)Competence (human resources)Philosophy of educationEducation theoryBildung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the philosophical transformation of educational purpose under the global rise of Competency-Based Education (CBE). It argues that the shift from knowledge to competence represents not merely a reform of pedagogy but a reconfiguration of the normative foundations of education. Traditionally, knowledge occupied a formative and ethical role in shaping persons capable of judgment and reflection. CBE redefines this role through a logic of performance, in which learning is measured by demonstrable outcomes rather than oriented toward understanding. Drawing on the critical theories of Horkheimer, Habermas, and contemporary educational philosophers such as Chappell, Gonczi, Hager, and Waghid, the paper explores how instrumental rationality has narrowed the horizon of educational purpose. Competence, while valuable as a means of organizing learning, becomes problematic when elevated to an educational end. The analysis identifies three structural consequences of this shift: the internalization of purpose within technical systems, the managerial rationalization of learning, and the erosion of reflective and moral formation. In addressing major defenses of CBE—its neutrality, its integration of knowledge, and its pragmatic alignment with societal needs—the paper acknowledges their partial validity while showing that each rests on an implicit instrumentalism. It concludes by proposing a framework for reclaiming educational purpose beyond competence through the restoration of knowledge as a formative good, the cultivation of reflection and uncertainty, and the reaffirmation of education as an ethical encounter. The paper contends that education must remain a human practice oriented toward understanding, not a technical system of measurable performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.527
Teacher spread0.478 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advanced Research in EducationSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207