Teachers and Teaching

theory and practice

ISSN: 1354-0602 (Print) 1470-1278 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctat20

Evaluation criteria for competency-based syllabi: a

Chilean case study applying mixed methods

Oscar Jerez, Leslier Valenzuela, Veronica Pizarro, Beatriz Hasbun, Gabriela

Valenzuela & Cesar Orsini

To cite this article: Oscar Jerez, Leslier Valenzuela, Veronica Pizarro, Beatriz Hasbun,
Gabriela Valenzuela & Cesar Orsini (2015): Evaluation criteria for competency-based
syllabi: a Chilean case study applying mixed methods, Teachers and Teaching, DOI:
10.1080/13540602.2015.1082728

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1082728

Published online: 25 Dec 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 6

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctat20

Download by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] Date: 28 December 2015, At: 05:42
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1082728

Evaluation criteria for competency-based syllabi: a Chilean

case study applying mixed methods
Oscar Jereza, Leslier Valenzuelab, Veronica Pizarroc, Beatriz Hasbuna,
Gabriela Valenzuelaa and Cesar Orsinia,d
a
Teaching and Learning Centre, Economics and Business School, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile;
b
Department of Business Administration, Economics and Business School, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile;
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

c
Department of Management Control & Information Systems, Economics and Business School, University of
Chile, Santiago, Chile; dMedical School, College of Medical, Veterinary, and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow,
Glasgow, UK

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In recent decades, higher education institutions worldwide have been Received 31 May 2014
moving from knowledge-based to competence-based curricula. One Accepted 16 December 2014
of the greatest challenges in this transition is the difficulty in changing KEYWORDS
the knowledge-oriented practices of teachers. This study evaluates Learning outcome;
the consistency between syllabus design and the requirements competence-based
imposed by a competence-based learning environment. To make curriculum; syllabus; criteria;
this comparison, the study sets four criteria (C1: explicit relationship Chile
between syllabus and graduate profile; C2: precision of the learning
outcomes and assessment criteria; C3: contents that mobilise the
learning outcomes; and C4: learning and assessment activities) derived
from the literature and a thematic analysis of competence-based
learning in higher education. Afterwards, a sample of 150 syllabi from
different disciplines of five Chilean public universities were analysed,
all of which stated the use of learning outcomes and competences in
their learning models. Using a three-point Likert scale derived from
the aforementioned criteria and their indicators, a comparison was
made between the actual practices reflected in the syllabus design
and the previously established criteria. Results show a gap between
the declaration of a competency-based curriculum and actual syllabus
outlines. Moreover, there are important differences among disciplines.
Although all disciplines present high levels of accomplishment for
Criteria 1 and 3, only the discipline of health sciences presents an
acceptable level for Criteria 2 and 4. It is recommended that further
research be undertaken towards identifying effective competency-
based syllabus design.

Introduction
During the second half of the twentieth century, there was an expansion of access to higher
education in northern countries (especially in Europe and the USA). In Latin America, this
tendency emerged at the end of the 1970s; over the last decade in Chile, seven out of ten

CONTACT  Oscar Jerez  ojerez@fen.uchile.cl 

© 2015 Taylor & Francis
 2    O. Jerez et al.

first-year students represented a first generation accessing higher education in their families
(Santiago, Tremblay, Basri, & Arnal, 2008/2009).
This global trend has resulted in the need to restructure and expand university systems
as well as to link the capacity, motivation and cultural background of the enrolled students
to the curriculum (Biggs, 2006). Indeed, there is increasing awareness of the need to con-
sider students’ characteristics and challenges, to modify teaching methods and activities, to
foster their learning processes (Álvarez, Mieres, & Rodríguez, 2007; Bolívar, 2005; Zabalza,
2002), and to prepare them to enter an increasingly challenging professional world. As a
result, there has been a change in the paradigm from a content-based approach to a com-
petency-based approach. Some experts argue that this model of competence is a variant of
a broader approach known as outcomes-based education (Adam, 2008; Allan, 1996; Harden,
2002; Killen, 2000; Malan, 2000) which originated in the 1960s with Mager (1962a, 1962b,
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

1975). Others argue that the competence model is only a trend generated by requests of
productive sectors (Gonczi & Athanasou, 1996; Le Boterf, 2000) and social challenges urging
institutions of higher education to become involved (Eraut, 1994; Gilis, Clemet, & Pauwels,
2008; Masterpasqua, 1989; Perrenoud, 2008; Vásquez, 2001; Yániz, 2008).
There are numerous impending challenges in this new competency-based scenario. At a
global level, in both northern and southern universities, there is a strong inclination to revise
learning processes in relation to quality and relevance. This revision involves (1) curricular
designs, (2) methodological approaches and (3) assessment processes, as well as outcomes
and effects (Brockbank & McGill, 1998; Carpio Ramírez, Díaz, Ibáñez, & Obregón, 2007;
Cohen & Kisker, 2009; Fry, 2009; García & Gómez, 2010; González & Wagenaar, 2004;
Shang-jie & Gang, 2010; Westerheijden, Stensaker, & Rosa, 2007).
The strategies used to address these challenges are diverse and depend on individual
contexts and particularities of each university. However, there is a transversal common
element among these strategies – to focus on learning in relation to a graduate’s com-
petence – because it allows the articulation between the formative process and students’
learning (Harrison & Mitchell, 2006; Le Boterf, 2000; Jerez, 2011; Perrenoud, 2008; Rué,
2008; Vásquez, 2001).
Indeed, this change of paradigm has fostered a transition from rigid, stratified and
non-disciplinary classroom activities to integrated, flexible and cyclical learning activities
(Cowan & Harding, 2006). In addition, there have also been modifications in teaching and
learning approaches, evolving from the mere provision and accumulation of knowledge to
the development of critical thinking (Brophy, 1989; Rué, 2008). The pedagogic instrument
in which all of these changes should be reflected is the course syllabus. The syllabus is
understood as a powerful communication device for students that furnishes strategically
designed details about how they are learning and how they will be assessed, and explains
the role of all actors participating in the process (Habanek, 2005).
Since 2010 and through the ‘Transferable Credit System Project’ (Kri, 2013), several
Chilean public universities agreed to establish common syllabus design components,
intended to increase transferability and mobility of students among them and to foreign
Universities. Therefore, all their syllabi have common institutional competency-based tem-
plates making them comparable, regardless of the discipline. However, as a starting point,
this common template may hold certain variations according to each institution’s and lec-
turing teacher’s ethos.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice   3

Having said this, it is important to clarify certain aspects of this common syllabus design
template. A competence descriptor establishes the relationship between the course and the
graduate profile. Afterwards several learning outcomes (and their assessment criteria) are
described; for each one of these, there are cognitive, procedural and attitudinal contents. The
latter represent what the student has to mobilise in order to achieve the proposed learning
outcomes. The path by which the student should achieve the learning outcomes is defined
by learning and assessment activities. Learning activities represent all the learning instances
that students are given to reach the proposed learning outcome, and assessment activities
are the products that students must demonstrate to provide evidence of the accomplished
learning process (Jerez, 2011; Kri, 2013).
In this particular context of change, we attempt to offer a theoretical and empirical con-
tribution by systematising the concept of learning based on competences. There are two
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

primary aims of this study: in Phase I, our goal is to establish the attributes of a well-struc-
tured competency-based syllabus and thereby reveal the criteria and indicators for syllabus
design; and, in Phase II, it is to apply these theory-revealed criteria and indicators to a
sample of 150 syllabi from five different public universities in Chile and from diverse fields
of knowledge (architecture, health sciences, business and economics, education and engi-
neering), contrasting theory and practice in terms of the syllabus as a mechanism to illustrate
the paradigm shift in higher education. Therefore, our initial hypothesis in Phase II was
that regardless of the common syllabus templates focused on competency-based practices
some disciplines are more likely to establish a competency-based curriculum than others.

Method
The present study was conducted between March and September 2013, and it was developed
in two phases. In phase I, through a literature review and posterior thematic analysis, we
systematised and defined the attributes of a well-structured competency-based syllabus
and revealed the criteria and indicators for its design. Phase II was developed following a
quantitative approach by analysing a non-representative incidental sample of 150 syllabi
from five different public universities in Chile, based on the theory-revealed criteria and
their respective indicators. The ethics committee of the University of Chile approved the
study protocol in December 2012.

Phase I
The criteria were defined using document research based on the literature in this area, cor-
responding to a qualitative perspective on research. A search of the ERIC, British Education
Index, Education Administrator Abstracts and Teacher Reference Centre databases was
conducted through EBSCO in March 2013. Keywords used in the search strategy included
‘Learning Outcomes’, ‘Syllabus’ and ‘Higher Education’. Moreover, hand searching of relevant
journals and ancestry search of selected articles complemented the review. Two independent
authors conducted the search and posterior selection of articles’ abstracts and full texts.
Whenever disagreement was found between the authors, a third researcher was invited to
mediate until consensus was reached.
Afterwards, a thematic analysis of the selected articles was conducted using the ATLAS.ti®
7 software, following an inductive approach. The unit of analysis was focused on the criteria
 4    O. Jerez et al.

for designing a competency-based syllabus. Two independent researchers analysed and

coded the data, with the assistance of a third researcher to mediate whenever disagreement
was found. Multiple cycles of open coding, constant comparison, central coding and a pos-
terior interpretative stage resulted in the emergence of different themes and subthemes cor-
responding to the criteria and indicators that a competency-based syllabus should include.
Subsequently, the identified criteria and indicators were validated by a panel of three
experts in curriculum design in higher education. To be considered as part of the panel,
experts had to meet the following criteria: (1) ten or more years of continuous higher
education teaching experience; (2) a master or doctoral degree in higher education; (3)
work experience in syllabus design and innovation in higher education; and (4) published
research focused on higher education over the last five years. The panel met twice. In the
first instance, the criteria and indicators were revised and minor changes were suggested;
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

these were mainly aimed at improving how indicators were written so that they focus on
the criteria rather than on generalities of syllabus design. Moreover, experts suggested that
three indicators be removed as they were too general and did not address competency-based
practices (e.g. ‘Considers normative and regulatory institutional elements’). During the sec-
ond meeting, the adjusted criteria and indicators were revised and consensus was reached.

Phase II
An operational definition to evaluate competency-based syllabi was developed from the
criteria and indicators of Phase I. A three-point Likert Scale (1 = Present, 2 = Partially
Present, 3 = Absent) containing all the indicators grouped under their respective criterion
was applied to the selected syllabus sample. The sample consisted of 150 syllabi distrib-
uted in equal numbers among five academic disciplines of undergraduate programmes: (1)
engineering, (2) health sciences (dentistry, nursing and nutrition), (3) education sciences
(teachers of primary and secondary education), (4) economics and business, and (5) archi-
tecture. The lecturing teachers were responsible for the final outline of each syllabus. All
participant Chilean universities declared the use of a competency-based approach in their
academic model documents and the importance of having common syllabus templates
defined in the ‘Transferable Credit System Project’ (Kri, 2013).
Three authors analysed and assessed the syllabi sample. The first 20 syllabi were analysed
altogether by the three authors in order to standardise their judgement; afterwards the
remaining 130 syllabi were analysed independently, with a variance of 1.6 over the total
scores. The presence, partial presence or absence of the criteria indicators was used to rate
all the syllabi and then to calculate Z scores, thus allowing us to calculate the percentage
of accomplishment for each criterion and, based on the variances, to reflect on the differ-
ences across disciplines so as to standardise the final score. All descriptive statistics were
conducted using the software SPSS® 20.0.

Findings
Phase I
Our literature review included original research articles, handbooks from different
Universities and books on curricular design in higher education, predominantly concerning
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice   5

Table 1. Differentiation and linkage between competence and learning outcomes.

Differentiation Contrary to learning outcomes, which can be understood
during a more limited process, such as a class, competenc-
es must be shown as an overall rather than as a partial
action or behaviour (Jenkins & Unwin, 1996).
During the learning process, learning outcomes can
be managed at the level of learning activities and
assessment (Harden, 2002). Conversely and due to their
complexity and density, competences must be shown in
an indirect fashion and throughout the entire learning
process.
It is the competences of the graduate profile rather than
the temporality of curricular activities or classes that
makes sense for learning (Jessup, 1991).
The use of learning outcomes to detail the totality of
learning, such as a graduate profile, is not particularly
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

convenient, as it ends in a list that is excessively disag-

gregated for this level (Fry, 2009).
Linkage A set of learning outcomes accounts for the development
of a competence (Harden, 2007).
The contents and learning outcomes of the curriculum
stem from competences. An individual is not considered
competent unless he or she has completed the learning
schedule (Harrison & Mitchell, 2006).
In terms of learning, competences are integrated domains
or learning outcomes that move in a specific context
to successfully meet complex demands (Rychen &
Salganik, 2002).

the attributes and specificities of learning based on competences and syllabus design and
outline. Specifically, the key aspects described in the literature pointed at the differences
and linkage between competence and learning outcomes and the essential features and
characteristics of an effective syllabus (Cowan & Harding, 2006; Fry, 2009; Habanek, 2005;
Kri, 2013; Littlefield, 1999; Slattery & Carlson, 2005).
In terms of establishing the differences and linkage between competences and learning
outcomes, the literature is not particularly precise. There is confusion and lack of clarity
when attempting to define the difference between the two terms (Adam 2008; Kennedy,
2009; Kennedy, Hyland, & Ryan, 2007). Below, we describe some of the significant elements
in the differentiation and linkage between competence and learning outcomes (Table 1).
A number of authors reported that learning outcomes are used more frequently to
describe what students are expected to know, understand or/and be able to show at the
end of a learning activity or class. Therefore, learning outcomes apply to more limited edu-
cational spaces than do competences (Allan, 1996; Gosling & Moon, 2002; Harden, 2002;
Jansen, 1999; Jenkins & Unwin, 1996; Killen, 2000; Van der Horst & McDonald, 1997). By
contrast, the term competence is used in a broader and more holistic sense, referring to the
overall learning or to a graduate’s general profile, rather than to its constituent parts across
the curriculum. Ultimately, both competences and learning outcomes must be integrated
in the course syllabus as a means of actually implementing competency-based curricula.
Therefore, questions arise about the essential features that a syllabus must include to accom-
plish this new approach to understanding the teaching and learning process.
University teaching requires organisation, articulation and strategically intentioned exe-
cution rather than unpredictable and disconnected actions (Zabalza, 2004). Consequently,
a syllabus should not only be a declaration of contents. As proposed by Parkes and Harris
 6    O. Jerez et al.

Table 2. Summary of syllabus purposes and associated elements.

Purpose
The syllabus as an agreement
The syllabus as a permanent record
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015
Associated elements
•  Clear and precise schedule for the class
•  Academic conditions for approval: components
and weighting
• Regulations
•  Cancellation or invalidation of a class
•  Exceptions for exams
•  Assessment criteria for completing tasks and
revisions
•  Rules pertaining to academic dishonesty
•  Orientation on academic liberty
•  Special situations in terms of disability
•  Title and date of class
•  University department offering the class

•  Obtainable hours and credits

The syllabus as a learning tool
Source: Parkes & Harris, 2002.
•  Title and grade of the teacher(s)
•  Prerequisites of curricular activities
•  Compulsory bibliography and other class
materials
•  Description of class content
•  Description of assessment procedures
•  Planning and self-management
•  Planning of activities
•  Time required outside of class
•  Recommendations on how to perform well in
assessments
•  Common misconceptions or errors
•  Specific strategies for studying
•  Availability of the teacher(s) and assistants
•  Available resources on campus
•  Offices that help and provide orientation for
students with specific needs
•  Relevance and importance of the class for stu-
dents’ learning
•  A model for high-quality work

(2002), it should also fulfil a threefold purpose (Table 2) of serving as an agreement, a

permanent record and a learning tool.
Similarly, Littlefield (1999) proposed that a syllabus must meet the goals of motivating
students, structuring the teaching–learning process and establishing standards for assess-
ment and evaluation, according to the following seven goals: (1) to establish a tone for
the class, (2) to motivate students to establish high but attainable standards, (3) to serve
as a planning tool for teachers, (4) to structure the work of students over the weeks, (5) to
help the faculty plan and meet objectives in a timely manner, (6) to serve as an agreement
between faculty and students in relation to what students expect from teachers and vice
versa, and (7) to serve as a tool for certifying learning accomplishments for promotion or
job applications.
In brief, the syllabus is considered a powerful device of communication with students
that furnishes strategically designed details about how students will learn and be evalu-
ated and that explains the role of all actors participating in the process. For this reason,
the literature considers syllabi to be powerful devices that are capable of embodying and
structuring change in the learning and teaching process (Habanek, 2005). Nevertheless,
teachers often use a syllabus in different ways to differentiate the purpose and key elements

Table 3. Effective syllabus design; criteria and indicators.
Criteria
C1. Relationship between compe-
tences and graduate profile
C2. Precision of learning out-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015
comes and assessment criteria
C3. Contents that mobilise the
learning outcomes
Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice   7
% of coverage within the
Indicators instrument
(1)Clear relationship between the course syllabus 10%
and the graduate profile, considering its different
levels.
(2)The syllabus competence descriptor is drafted
as: verb in infinitive form + object + condition.
(3)The syllabus competence descriptor is clearly
defined without ambiguities.
(4)A list of cognitive and skills contents, which
have to be met as prerequisites for the course,
are described through a list outlining the rele-
vant and complementary ones.
(1)Learning outcomes are described according to 35%
the syllabus competence descriptor.
(2)Learning outcomes are described as: verb in
third person singular + object + condition.
(3)The verb describing a learning outcome is
coherent with the competence descriptor, in
level and meaning.
(4)Learning outcomes’ objects are clearly identi-
fied.
(5)Learning outcomes’ conditions are present and
make reference to disciplinary or circumstantial
issues.
(6)Learning outcomes’ conditions make reference
to their purpose (the ‘what for’).
(7)Learning outcomes are intended to produce an
evidence showing their accomplishment.
(8)An ethical judgment can be established
through the learning outcomes.
(9)Learning outcomes are clearly described with-
out ambiguities.
(10)The learning outcomes’ assessment criteria
covers every methodological aspect of them.
(11)Assessment criteria are described as: verb in
third person singular + object + condition.
(12)Assessment criteria are more specific and
concrete than learning outcomes.
(13)Assessment criteria define the way learning
outcomes are assessed.
(14)Assessment criteria provide guidance to
evaluate if the learning outcome has been
accomplished.
(1)Learning outcomes contents’ are presented as a 23%
list or as an index.
(2)Learning outcomes’ contents are clearly de-
scribed without ambiguities
(3)The syllabus outlines cognitive contents for
each learning outcome.
(4)The syllabus outlines procedural contents for
each learning outcome.
(5)The syllabus outlines attitudinal contents for
each learning outcome.
(6)Learning outcomes’ contents are organised
from the most simple to the most complex ones.
(7)Learning outcomes’ contents are pertinent to
the formative level or professional qualification
of students.
(8)Learning outcomes’ contents are explicitly
described so they clearly express their sense and
meaning.
(9)Contents are pertinent enough to mobilise each
of the learning outcomes.
(Continued)
 8    O. Jerez et al.

Table 3.  (Continued)
Criteria
C4. Learning activities and assess-
ment sequenced in time
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015
% of coverage within the
Indicators instrument
(1)Learning Activities are pertinent to achieve the 33%
corresponding learning outcomes.
(2)Each learning activity is drafted as an action to
be performed.
(3)Learning activities are all student-centred.
(4)There is evidence of learning activities centred
on the student-teacher interaction.
(5)Learning activities recall previous experience
and knowledge required to achieve the pro-
posed learning outcomes.
(6)Learning activities are pertinent to the charac-
teristics and nature of the learning outcomes’
contents (Cognitive, procedural, and attitudinal).

(7)Learning activities promote reflection and

reconceptualization of the learning outcomes.
(8)Learning activities support the implementa-
tion of knowledge and skills derived from each
learning outcome.
(9)All Learning outcomes become achievable by
the assessment activities described.
(10)Assessment activities are sufficient to guide
the learning process and the learning outcomes.
(11)Assessment activities are intended to produce
an evidence of the product derived from the
learning outcomes.
(12)Assessment activities lead to decisions related
to the process and orientation of learning
outcomes.
(13)Each assessment activity is drafted as an
action to be performed.
Total 40 Indicators 100%

of their practice. Parkes and Harris (2002) established a summary of syllabus purposes and
associated elements:
Slattery and Carlson (2005) proposed that despite the differences in the style and design
of syllabi the majority share certain essential components. Almost without exception, a
syllabus includes the teacher’s contact information, the goals and learning outcomes of
the class, the means to accomplish goals, methods to establish the levels of achievement or
assessment criteria and an academic calendar. This calendar includes prerequisites, tools
for the class, waivers and a bibliography of required and suggested readings. In addition,
according to Fink (2003), the key factor of effective syllabus design consists of developing
a model of an integrated class, in contrast to a linear, content-centred class. The syllabus
must consider learning outcomes in terms of the integrated knowledge that guides teaching
and learning activities and the monitoring of the process.
Having defined the differences and linkage between competence and learning outcomes
and discussed the essential features of the syllabus, we will now move to identify the critical
factors in syllabus design. A set of criteria and indicators were established from the literature
and from the expert panel discussion to define the attributes associated with the quality of
an effective competency-based syllabus (Carrión Carranza, 2001).
Four criteria were identified, corresponding to (C1) the syllabus must identify how it
supports the development of the competences declared in the graduate profile, at different
levels or with different elements during the learning process; (C2) learning outcomes must
be established precisely and clearly, with a formative standard aiming at accomplishing
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice   9

Table 4. Descriptive statistical results for the indicators of Criteria 1 and 2 according to the various dis-
ciplines.
C1. Indicators of the relationship
between competences and graduate C2. Indicators of the precision of learn-
profile ing outcomes and assessment criteria
Discipline F % MO ME SD F % MO ME SD
Architecture 108 90 4 3.61 .62 126 30 3 4.2 2.38
Health Sciences 116 97 4 3.91 .35 280 67 12 9.3 3.41
Economics and Business 108 90 4 3.62 .72 154 37 5 5.56 1.83
Education 108 90 4 3.62 .54 126 30 4 4.9 .94
Engineering 112 93 4 3.74 0.52 140 33 6 5.4 1.8
Total 552 92 4 3.73 0.55 826 39 – 5.8 2.07
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

Table 5. Descriptive statistical results of the indicators for Criteria 3 and 4 according to the various dis-
ciplines.
C4. Indicators of learning and assess-
C3. Indicators of content ment activities
Disciplines F % MO ME SD F % MO ME SD
Architecture 181 67 6 5.6 0.95 104 27 3 3 .5
Health Sciences 170 63 7 6.7 1 299 77 5 4.9 .9
Economics and Business 189 70 7 6.4 1.3 117 30 3 2.9 2.3
Education 189 70 7 6.9 0.99 130 33 3 3 .94
Engineering 197 73 8 7 1.1 156 40 4 3.9 1.1
Total 932 69 7 6.52 1.06 806 41 3 3.54 1.14

Table 6. Total results by discipline for all indicators.

Total
Disciplines F %
Architecture 518 43
Health Sciences 866 72
Economics and Business 568 47
Education 553 46
Engineering 606 51
Total 3111 52

the declared competences; (C3) the content defined in the syllabus must be selected to
lead students to achieve previously established learning outcomes, at least considering the
conceptual, procedural and attitudinal nature of this knowledge; and finally, (C4) learning
and assessment activities must be distributed in time and must be defined to allow teachers
to achieve goals and to describe and assess the learning outcomes of students. To satisfy
each of the latter criteria, a set of 40 indicators or observable realisations were established
to show the relevant aspects or elements (Lukas & Santiago, 2004) for the quality criteria
of the competency-based syllabus. Table 3 outlines the four criteria and their indicators.

Phase II
For each of the syllabi, the full list of indicators was applied, and their presence, partial
presence or absence was given a value. For instance, the indicator, ‘All learning outcomes
become achievable by the assessment activities described’, would be considered as present if
 10    O. Jerez et al.

there were enough assessment activities to achieve and have evidence of the corresponding
learning outcome. It would be considered as partially present if there were some, but not
enough, assessment activities described to achieve the learning outcome; therefore, some
aspects of the intended learning outcome are left uncovered. Finally, it would be considered
absent if no assessment activities were described by which the learning outcome could be
achieved. The resulting instrument is available from the corresponding author.
Turning now to the findings of this phase, we present the results of the analysis of the
150 syllabi, distributed between five different disciplines, based on the four criteria revealed
in the literature review. To prove the hypothesis that some disciplines are more likely to
establish a competency-based curriculum than others because of their specific traditions,
a descriptive analysis by disciplines was conducted.
Concerning the first criterion (C1) regarding the explicit relationship between competences
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

and graduate profile, there were no major differences across disciplines, and the results for
more than 92% of the syllabi were consistent with this relationship.
These findings are significant as they allow the class to be viewed in relation to a built-in
reference approach, such as a graduate profile (C1) rather than to the specific traditional
perspectives of teachers. Regarding the second criterion (C2) related to the precision of
learning outcomes and assessment criteria (Table 4), in contrast to the first case, we found
low scores. Four of the five disciplines achieved approximately 30% in the defined indicators.
With regard to learning outcomes, the lowest scores were observed for the following
reasons:
• Ambiguity when defining the action of the learning outcome (the verb in the sentence).
This ambiguity creates a lack of clarity in terms of how students must mobilise their
resources or built-in knowledge to achieve the outcome.
• The contexts where students will show the mobilisation of knowledge was not explicit.
• The learning outcome (what this learning is for) was also not explicitly given. Therefore,
no meaningful sense was assigned to the action that would lead to its achievement.
• Concerning the outlined assessment criteria, the results were as follows:
• The criteria were mostly conceived as references for decision-making in their expla-
nation and drafting, and not understood as actions for assessment.
• The criteria did not indicate or suggest how the teacher would determine whether
learning outcomes were achieved.
The only discipline that showed a substantial positive difference was health sciences.
This area showed achievements that were nearly double compared with other disciplines,
reaching approximately 67%. This high score may be explained by the disciplinary episteme
which tends to rely on a clear explanation of how, which way, in what context or for what
the professional work and learning are required from students (Table 4).
In the case of C3, which considers the content required to mobilise learning outcomes,
the indicators showed greater than 60% achievement for all disciplines without significant
differences. However, the critical elements are related to the exclusive definition of con-
ceptual or theoretical content, whereas other types of cognitive knowledge, procedural
skills or attitudes are absent. Formation based on outputs and competences considers the
integration of different types of knowledge and skills, without reducing the approach to a
one-dimensional and disconnected conceptual content.
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice   11

For the fourth criterion (C4), regarding learning and assessment activities (Table 5), a
major achievement in the indicators was reached by health sciences (77%), similarly to the
C2 results, and by engineering to a far lesser extent. C4 indicators showed a lower level of
achievement due to:
• Most actions did not consider the context or features of the environment in which
actions will occur or show traces of the sequential learning that gives shape to the
intervention. This lack of consideration arises because of excessive generalisation and
a lack of specification.
• With the exception of health sciences and, to a lesser degree, engineering, learning
activities were neither attuned to nor coherent with the learning outcomes.
• The assessment activities and evidence presented were unable to generate compe-
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

tency-based assessments that would support and provide a real account of learning
achievement in practical terms.
In general, four of the five analysed disciplines reached between 46 and 51% of indi-
cators’ presence according to the formerly established criteria (Table 6). This result leads
us to conclude that because of their outline, the analysed syllabi were unable to facilitate
a strategic process of learning based on outputs. The gap between the real and the ideal
remains substantial. Only the discipline of health sciences noticeably exceeded the average
with 72% achievement.

Discussions and conclusions

The present study was designed to determine  the consistency between syllabus outline
and the requirements imposed by a competency-based learning environment. An initial
objective of the project was to identify the criteria and indicators of an effective competen-
cy-based syllabus followed by an analysis of a 150-sample syllabus from diverse disciplines
in different Chilean public Universities. This analysis allowed us to observe a gap between
the declaration of a competency-based curriculum in university educational models and
their actual implementation.
According to the four criteria established, a visible and clear connection between graduate
profiles, learning outcomes, and learning and assessment activities provides the teacher and
students with integrative meaning in relation to the process of learning, which eliminates
the conception of disconnected actions. From the traditional perspective, each teacher
conducts his/her lectureship without concern for how or whether students learn or integrate
the content. For this reason, the function of the syllabus in connecting learning actions and
experiences is important. With an output-based approach, learning is not generated by
accumulation, but rather is facilitated by the integration of mobilised and context-related
knowledge (Eraut, 1994; Gilis et al., 2008; Rey, 2000).
In total, 92% of the analysed syllabi explicitly defined the relationship between the syl-
labus and exit competences, thus fulfilling our first criterion of an effective syllabus design
and outline. However, according to our second criterion (C2) related to the generation of
learning outcomes and assessment criteria, the study revealed that the syllabi were largely
ambiguous or did not specify learning outcomes, even though such outcomes are considered
key elements in implementing competency-based curricula.
 12    O. Jerez et al.

Having said this, the following key criteria should be considered when designating learn-
ing outcomes: (1) the use of language, (2) the discipline, (3) the use of a taxonomy of learning
and (4) the context of learning. Without these criteria, learning outcomes lack meaning.
According to Wittgenstein (1999), the meaning of words is clarified in the function of their
use. Therefore, asking for the meaning of a word or proposition corresponds to asking
oneself how it is used (in this context, how is it taught, learnt, monitored and assessed?),
which implies that the correct use of a word or proposition is established by its context or
environment. The use of language enables differentiating and delimiting the real scope of the
student performance that is sought at the end of the process. In other words, ‘identifying’,
‘analysing’ or ‘drawing conclusions’ are not synonyms; in fact, they are related to different
implications in terms of learning. However, the use of language is not sufficient. The disci-
plinary vision allows refinements and key functions to be provided through language: the
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

approach (how) and the meaning of reality (in which circumstances arise).
As a third criterion, the use of a taxonomy that better adapts to certain naming proposals
becomes relevant as it helps to place learning outcomes in the context of a process and a
mental mechanism necessary to mobilise knowledge and resources.
The study also showed that despite the need to identify the context in which learning
will occur, the syllabus did not establish the means or situations in which the action on the
object is defined (C2). Such contextualisation is important, as it facilitates visualisation of
the expected achievement, its conditions and its features. Through these four criteria, the
discipline should always prevail, as it accounts for the critical thinking of each particular
profession.
Another interesting finding according to the evaluation of C3 is that although a com-
petency-based curriculum considers the integration of different types of knowledge, such
as the psychomotor level, mental processes, procedural skills and attitudes, the majority of
the syllabi that were analysed primarily offered conceptual knowledge; hence, teachers still
view their courses mainly in terms of a content-based curriculum rather than in terms of
a full competency-based one.
In terms of the fourth criterion (C4), the results showed that learning outcomes, activities
and assessment do not work together, as each one points in a different direction. To align
these three key elements, one should establish sufficient learning outcomes that are relevant
for the curricular activity and should allow activities such as teaching, learning and syllabus
evaluation to be organised more efficiently. If learning outcomes are observable achieve-
ments of students after a learning process occurs, then it will be necessary for all didactic
and assessment actions to be defined as effective opportunities to facilitate performance of
these outcomes. In discussing the adequacy of learning outcomes, we consider that they
can be achieved through a relevant process of teaching and learning. In this context, the
learning output becomes a leading criterion for the selection and organisation of learning
activities through its projective attribute for didactic action. Consequently, it is possible to
unite different types of activities while prioritising key learning activities that are relevant
to the learning output, given the features of students and teachers (Álvarez, 2008; Biggs,
2006; Escotet et al., 2004; Fuensanta, Martínez, Da Fonseca, & Rubio, 2005; Villardón &
Yániz, 2006).
In summary, given all of the findings presented above and given that the disciplines
generally reached only 52% achievement according to the criteria established by the present
study, we can conclude that Chile is still transitioning from a knowledge-based paradigm
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice   13

to a competency-based paradigm and that a great amount of work remains in terms of

enabling teachers to shift their practices and conceptions related to the formation processes.
Furthermore and considering the moves in higher education to more student-centred
learning: the constructive alignment of learning outcomes with assessment tasks, the use
of explicit criteria and the focus on building general competences, we believe our research
has relevance and could be transferred to an international audience of educators who work
across disciplines.

Limitations of the study and proposals for future investigations

This research provides insights into the Chilean implementation of a competency-based
curriculum as reflected in syllabus design and aims to challenge the dualistic assumptions
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

regarding knowledge production in northern and southern countries. Therefore, this paper
is intended to contribute to enriching research and practices related to the structure of
higher education (Cousin, 2012; Kandlbinder, 2012).
Nevertheless, a number of important limitations should be considered. In the first place,
this study relies on a non-representative incidental sample of 150 syllabi; thus, the results
obtained in this paper are valid only for those public universities that were analysed and
do not necessarily represent the reality of the entire university system. Achievement of the
goal of paradigm shift may vary among other universities depending on when they began
to embrace the competency-based paradigm. Secondly, this study lacks insight into, for
instance, how a teacher’s professional profile influences syllabus design and its final outline
or how syllabus design itself relates to the actual performance of students and teachers.
Moreover, further research should explore and observe, in the classroom, how the teach-
ers implement their syllabus in their daily teaching. Therefore, it is necessary to continue
investigating these subjects to allow for more comprehensive research integrating all areas
involved in the teaching and learning process.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Adam, S. (2008, February). Learning outcomes current developments in Europe: Update on the issues
and applications of learning outcomes associated with the Bologna process. In Contribution to
the Bologna Seminar: Learning outcomes based higher education: The Scottish Experience, February
21–22 2008. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University. Retrieved from: http://www.ehea.info/Uploads/
Seminars/Edinburgh_Feb08_Adams.pdf
Allan, J. (1996). Learning outcomes in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 21, 93–108.
Álvarez, M. (2008). Promover el aprendizaje de la competencia escritora: secuencias en las que
se combina el trabajo individual y el trabajo cooperativo [Promoting the learning of writing
competence: sequences combining individual and cooperative work]. REDU Revista de Docencia
Universitaria, 6(1), 1–16.
Álvarez, B. Á., Mieres, C. G., & Rodríguez, N. G. (2007). La motivación y los métodos de evaluación
como variables fundamentales para estimular el aprendizaje autónomo [Motivation and evaluation
methods as decisive variables to encourage autonomous learning]. REDU Revista de Docencia
Universitaria, 5(2), 1–13.
 14    O. Jerez et al.

Biggs, J. (2006). Calidad del aprendizaje universitario [Teaching for quality learning at university].
Madrid: Narcea ediciones.
Bolívar, A. (2005). Conocimiento didáctico del contenido y didácticas específicas [Pedagogical
content knowledge and subject matter didactics]. Profesorado. Revista de currículum y formación
del profesorado, 9, 1–39.
Brockbank, A., & McGill, I. (1998). Facilitating reflective learning in higher education (p. 297). Bristol:
Taylor & Francis.
Brophy, J. (1989). Conclusion: Toward a theory of teaching. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on
teaching: Vol. 1. Teaching for meaningful understanding and self-regulated learning (pp. 345–355).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Carpio Ramírez, C., Díaz, L., Ibáñez, C., & Obregón, F. (2007). Aprendizaje de competencias
profesionales en psicología: Un modelo para la planeación curricular en la educación superior
[Professional Competence Learning in Psychology: A model for curricular planning in higher
education]. Enseñanza e Investigación en Psicología, 12, 27–34.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

Carrión Carranza, C. (2001). Valores y principios para evaluar la educación [Values and principles
for evaluating education]. México. Paidós Educador.
Cohen, A. M., & Kisker, C. B. (2009). The shaping of American higher education: Emergence and growth
of the contemporary system. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cousin, G. (2012). Getting our students to engage: A review of two key contributions 10 years on.
Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 15–20. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.642837
Cowan, J., & Harding, A. G. (2006). A logical model for curriculum development. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 17, 103–109. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.1986.tb00500.x
Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. London: Routledge Falmer.
Escotet, M., A. Villa, M. Fuensanta, S. Rodríguez, J. Rodríguez, C. Mayor, … , C. Moya. (2004). Pedagogía
universitaria, hacia un espacio de aprendizaje compartido [University teaching, towards a shared learning
space] (Vols. 1–2). Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto, Instituto de Ciencias de la Educación.
Fink, L. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college
courses. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.
Fry, H. (2009). A handbook for teaching and learning in higher education: Enhancing academic practice.
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Fuensanta, P., Martínez, P., Da Fonseca, P., & Rubio, M. (2005). Aprendizaje, competencias y rendimiento
en educacion superior [Learning, competences and performance in higher education]. Madrid:
La Muralla.
García, C. G., & Gómez, R. S. (2010). Adaptación de la metodología al Espacio Europeo de Educación
Superior. Análisis de la Opinión de los Alumnos [The methodology adapted to the European
Higher Education Area. Opinion Survey]. Estudios Sobre Educacion, 19, 237–260.
Gilis, A., Clemet, M., & Pauwels, P. (2008). Establishing a competence profile for the role of student-
centred teachers in higher education in Belgium. Research in Higher Education, 49, 531–554.
doi:10.1007%2Fs11162-008-9086-7
Gonczi, A., & Athanasou, J. (1996). Instrumentación de la educación basada en competencias
[Implementation of the competency-based education]. In A. Argüelles (comp.), Competencia
laboral y educación basada en normas de competencia (pp. 272–273). México: Limusa/SEP/CNCCL/
CONALEP.
González, J., & Wagenaar, R. (2004). Tuning educational structures in Europe. Resource document.
Retrieved from http://www.eua.be/fileadmin/user_upload/files/EUA1_documents/TUNING_
Announcement_Closing_Conference.1084282515011.pdf
Gosling, D., & J. Moon. (2002). How to use learning outcomes and assessment criteria. London: SEEC.
Habanek, D. V. (2005). An examination of the integrity of the syllabus. College Teaching, 53, 62–64.
doi:10.3200/CTCH.53.2.62-64
Harden, R. (2007). Outcome-based education: The future is today. Medical Teacher, 29, 625–629.
doi:10.1080/01421590701729930
Harden, R. M. (2002). Learning outcomes and instructional objectives: Is there a difference? Medical
Teacher, 24, 151–155. doi:10.1080/0142159022020687
Harrison, R., & Mitchell, L. (2006). Using outcomes-based methodology for the education, training
and assessment of competence of healthcare professionals. Medical Teacher, 28, 165–170.
doi:10.1080/01421590500271308
 Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice   15

Jansen, J. (1999). Why outcomes-based education will fail: An elaboration. In J. Jansen, & P. Christie
(Eds.), Changing curriculum: Studies on outcomes-based education in South Africa ed. J. Jansen and
P. Christie, (pp. 145–156). Kenwyn, Cape Town: Juta.
Jenkins, A., & D. Unwin. (1996). How to write learning outcomes. National Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis. Retrieved from: http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/
units/format/outcomes.html
Jerez, O. (2011). Los resultados de aprendizajes en la educación superior por competencias (Tesis
doctoral. Ed) [Learning outcomes in competency-based higher education (Doctoral thesis. Ed)].
Granada: Universidad de Granada.
Jessup, G. (1991). Outcomes: NVQs and the emerging model of education and training. London: Falmer
Press. doi:10.1016/S0033-3506(98)00598-8
Kandlbinder, P. (2012). Recognition and influence: The evolution of higher education research and
development. Higher Education Research & Development, 31, 5–13. doi:10.1080/07294360.2012.642836
Kennedy, D. (2009). Designing curricula based on learning outcomes. University College Cork.
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

Recuperado 12 de enero de 2013. Retrieved from http://www.irom.uw.edu.pl/pliki/179/Efekty_

kształcenia_Kennedy_2.pdf
Kennedy, D., Hyland, Á., & Ryan, N. (2007). Writing and using learning outcomes: A practical guide.
Cork: University College Cork.
Killen, R. (2000). Outcomes-based education: Principles and possibilities. New Castle: Faculty of
Education, University of Newcastle. doi:10.4314/sajhe.v18i1.25429
Kri, F. (2013). Manual para la Implementación del Sistema de Créditos Académicos Transferibles, SCT-
Chile [Manual for the implementation of the Academic Tranferable Credit System, SCT-Chile].
Santiago de Chile: Consejo de Rectores de las Universidades Chilenas.
Le Boterf, G. (2000). Ingeniería de las Competencias [Engineering of competences] (1st ed.). Barcelona:
Gestión.
Littlefield, V. M. (1999). My syllabus? It’s fine. Why do you ask? Or the syllabus: A tool for improving
teaching and learning. Calgary: Society for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.
Lukas, J. F., & Santiago, K. (2004). Evaluación educativa. Madrid: Alianza.
Mager, R. F. (1962a). Preparing objectives for programmed instruction. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Mager, R. F. (1962b). Preparing instructional objectives. Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Mager, R. F. (1975). Preparing instructional objectives (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Fearon.
Malan, S. P. T. (2000). The new paradigm of outcomes-based education in perspective. Journal of
Family Ecology and Consumer Sciences, 28, 22–28.
Masterpasqua, F. (1989). A competence paradigm for psychological practice. American Psychologist,
44, 1366–1371. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.44.11.1366
Parkes, J., & Harris, M. B. (2002). The purposes of a syllabus. College Teaching, 50, 55–61.
doi:10.1080/87567550209595875
Perrenoud, P. (2008). Construir las competencias, ¿es darle la espalda a los saberes? Resource
Document. Revista de Docencia Universitaria. Recuperado el 14 de mayo de 2014. Retrieved from
http://revistas.um.es/index.php/red_u/article/view/35261
Rey, B. (2000). ¿Existen las competencias transversales? [Are there transversal competences?]. Educar:
revista de educación/ nueva época, 26, 9–17.
Rué, J. (2008). Formar en competencias en la universidad: entre la relevancia y la banalidad [Educating
through competences in Higher Education: between relevancy and a banality]. REDU Revista de
Docencia Universitaria, (1), 3.
Rychen, D. S., & Salganik, L. H. (2002). DESECO: Key competencies for a successful life and a well
functioning society. Resource document. National Centre for Vocational Education Research
(NCVER). Retrieved April 14, 2011, from http://www.voced.edu.au/td/tnc_75.241
Santiago, P., Tremblay K., Basri E., & Arnal E. (2008/2009). Tertiary education for the knowledge
society: OECD thematic review of tertiary education: Synthesis report. Lisbon: Tertiary Education
for the Knowledge Society.
Shang-jie, N., & Gang, X. I. E. (2010). A comparative study of America’s and China’s curriculum
design for teacher education: An analysis based on University of Wisconsin-Madison and Sichuan
Normal University. Journal of Higher Education, 5, 014. Resource document. Retrieved from http://
en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTOTAL-ZJSK201005014.htm
 16    O. Jerez et al.

Slattery, J. M., & Carlson, J. F. (2005). Preparing an effective syllabus: Current best practices. College
Teaching, 53, 159–164. doi:10.3200/CTCH.53.4.159-164
Van der Horst, H., & McDonald, R. (1997). OBE, outcomes-based education: A teacher’s manual.
Pretoria: Kagiso.
Vásquez, Y. A. (2001). Educación basada en competencias [Competency-based education]. Educar
Revista de educación, 16, 1–29.
Villardón, L., & Yániz, C. (2006). Planificar desde competencias para promover el aprendizaje [Planning
from competences to promote learning]. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
Westerheijden, D. F., Stensaker, B., & Rosa, M. J. (Eds.). (2007). Quality assurance in higher education:
Trends in regulation, translation and transformation (Vol. 20). Dordrecht: Springer.
Wittgenstein, L. (1999). Investigaciones filosóficas [Philosophical investigations] (A. García y U.
Moulines trans.). Barcelona: Altaya.
Yániz, C. (2008). Las competencias en el currículo universitario: implicaciones para diseñar
el aprendizaje y para la formación del profesorado. Resource document. Revista de Docencia
Downloaded by [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] at 05:42 28 December 2015

Universitaria. Retrieved from http://www.um.es/ead/Red_U/m1/yaniz.pdf

Zabalza, M. A. (2002). La Enseñanza universitaria: el escenario y sus protagonistas. Madrid: Narcea.
doi:10.7213/dialogo.educ.7624
Zabalza, M. A. (2004). Guía para la planificación didáctica de la docencia universitaria en el marco
del EEES [Guide to instructional planning of university teaching within the EHEA]. Santiago de
Compostela: Universidad de Santiago de Compostela.