Competence-Based Assessment (CBA) is a new approach for assessing pedagogical competence of students in higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam. CBA is the process of collecting evidences and making judgments on whether competence has been achieved. CBA does not provide students with evidences to recognize their own knowledge and skills from dealing with real-world problems, but regulate teaching and learning. This research mentioned on a brief literature review on CBA and revealed a status of assessing pedagogical competence in training students to become Technical and vocational education and training (TVET) teachers at higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to gather data associated with CBA in general and the application of this approach in assessing pedagogical competence of students. This research also gave minor suggestions to strengthen the quality of applying CBA in assessing pedagogical competence of students in higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam.

1 Introduction

To meet requirements about the quality of human resource in the fourth industrial revolution, changing from Knowledge Based Teaching (focus on knowledge) into Competence Based Teaching (focus on competences) has become the inevitable and general trend in the world (Khanh & Oanh 2015). In this trend, Competence Based Assessment (CBA) is a very important link to make the teaching process successful. Based on learning outcomes, curriculum or professional competence standards, CBA concentrates on finding evidences to prove the various levels of applying knowledge, skills, attitude, value, and motivation in dealing with real-world problems.

CBA can help students motivate and engage them during the learning process. It’s a great way to provoke students to recognize the skills and knowledge they are possessing, and empower them to take control of their career development. The more competencies they acquire, the more valuable they will be to their development in the future. Furthermore, integration CBA into instruction is considered to strengthen a variety of applying active and experiential teaching methods. Not only students, but also teachers seem to have better opportunities to regulate their activities to achieve learning outcomes.

CBA is not new to the learning environment in the world but it can be the new approach to higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam. This paper refers to a literature review of CBA and a status of assessing pedagogical competence according to CBA in higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam.

2 Literature review of Competence-Based Assessment

Competence-Based Teaching does not focus on ‘teach knowledge’ or ‘transfer knowledge’. It emphasizes the development of holistic competence of students. This teaching approach requires assessment to be shifted from ’assess knowledge and skills’ to ‘CBA’. CBA has attracted attention by researchers in the world. Studying on CBA has concentrated on main issues in the following:

Firstly: Identify the definition of CBA.

The similar points of view among researchers on the concept of ‘CBA’ are to collect evidences and make judgments on whether competence has achieved compared with learning outcomes or professional standards. Khanh & Oanh (2015) believed that CBA focuses on the purpose of assessment for learning of self-students instead of ranking/comparing among students.

According to Wolf (1995), CBA is a form of assessment that is derived from the specification of a set of outcomes; that so clearly states both the outcomes – general and specific – that assessors, students and interested third parties can all make reasonably objective judgments with respect to student achievement or non-achievement of these outcomes; and that certifies student progress on the basis of demonstrated achievement of these outcomes. Assessments are not tied to time served in formal educational settings. Wolf also suggested that assessors, students and third parties can understand what is being assessed, and what should be achieved based on the learning outcomes and professional standards.

In the guidelines for competence assessment in vocational education and training in Western Australia (Western Australia Department of Training and Workforce Development 2013), CBA is the process of collecting evidence and making judgments on whether competence has been achieved. This confirms that an individual can perform to the standard expected in the workplace as expressed in the relevant endorsed industry/enterprise competency standards (or outcomes of accredited courses if there are no competency standards for an industry).

This paper applies the following understanding of CBA (Oanh 2016):

“CBA is an assessment approach based on learning outcomes (subjects or curriculum) or professional standards to make judgments on whether competence has been achieved through evidences associated with flexible application of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and personal attributes such as motives, interests, needs, beliefs and so on in dealing with real-world problems.”

In contrary to ‘assess knowledge or skills’, CBA must be based on learning outcomes or professional standards and applied regularly via formative and summative assessment, especially via formative assessment. Assessors, students (self or peer assessment) and third parties co-participate in making judgments on whether competence has been achieved. Results from CBA do not identify individual’s levels of competencies, but also give regulations of teaching and learning.

Secondly: Study on CBA techniques.

CBA techniques have been developed by Angelo & Cross (1993), Phye (1997), Fisher & Frey (2007), Irons (2008), Khanh & Oanh (2015) and so on.

The pioneer researchers in developing CBA techniques are Angelo & Cross (1993). Those presented 50 techniques as well as distinguish them into 3 categories:

−     27 techniques for assessing course-related knowledge and skills (Minute Paper, Muddiest Point, Word Journal and so on).

−     13 techniques for assessing learners, values, and self-awareness (Interest/Knowledge/Skills Checklists, Goal Ranking and Matching etc.).

−     10 techniques for assessing learner reactions to instruction (Group-Work Evaluations, Reading Rating Sheets, Assignment Assessment and so on).

Not only categorized, but the characteristics, purposes and ways of applying these techniques were also introduced in detail by Angelo & Cross.

Phye (1997) encouraged teachers to apply various techniques such as multiple choices, portfolios (writing samples, audiotapes of speeches, artwork, lab reports, even mathematics worksheets), rubrics, concept mapping and so on in the classroom.

Irons (2008) introduced some techniques to enhance learning through formative assessment and feedback. Assessment techniques were proposed including diagnostic interviews and tests; project supervisions; multiple choice questions; portfolios and so on.

Fisher & Frey (2007) convinced teachers to use oral language, questions, writing, projects and performances, tests, and common assessments and consensus scoring to check for understanding.

CBA was also classified assessment techniques in 3 groups by Khanh & Oanh (2015):

−     Techniques for cognitive competence (Minute Paper, Muddiest Point, One-Sentence Summary, Word Journal and so on).

−     Techniques for application competence (paper or project prospectus, directed paraphrasing, applications card and so on).

−     Techniques for self-assessment and feedback on the teaching process (group-work evaluations, checklist and so on).

According to Khanh & Oanh (2015), the application of these techniques should be engaged with learning outcomes and specific conditions of learning environment.

In short, CBA techniques have been drawn attraction of researchers for long time. CBA techniques are very various and link closely with learning outcomes and instruction, so they should be considered carefully before being applied in the classroom.

Thirdly: Study on integrating CBA into instruction

Instruction and assessment are core components of the teaching process. However, instruction seems to be separated from assessment. Oosterhof (2003) believed that educational reform efforts tend to emphasize the importance of integrating assessment into instruction. Knowledge should be instructed and assessed simultaneously.

In Competence-Based Teaching, the shift from assessment of learning to assessment for learning has been taken place by integrating CBA into instruction (William 2004; Elui 2008; Heffernan & Koedinger 2012; Oanh 2016). This integration does not provide teachers and students with valuable feedbacks to regulate the way of teaching and learning but give suggestions how the lesson could be improved.

Study on comparing the perception of academic coordinators and teachers, regarding the implementation of the competencies-based assessment and the difficulties and challenges they experimented in this process in the Spanish university context, Ion et al. (2015) also did indicate that CBA should be fully integrated in the learning process, provide information about learner progress and support learners in selecting appropriate learning tasks.

To sum up, CBA has been studied and applied in the classroom since the final decade of the 20th century. Literature of CBA revealed that the variety of CBA techniques and the benefits of integrating CBA into instruction could support teachers to make judgments on whether competence has achieved compared with learning outcomes or professional standards. In the Vietnamese universities of technology and education, assessment and other components of the teaching process (learning outcomes; content; instruction) are often separated. Assessment seems to be only of learning, not for learning. So, integrating CBA into instruction becomes more relevant to the trend of moving from ‘focus on knowledge’ to ‘focus on competence’ at Vietnamese universities of technology and education.

3 Status of assessing pedagogical competence of students at higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam

3.1 Outline of higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam

Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) plays a significant role in developing high quality human resources for each country. In TVET institutions, TVET teachers are responsible for training apprentices to become labourers. Parallel with technical competencies, TVET teachers must have pedagogical competence. Pedagogical competence consists of pedagogical professional knowledge (content knowledge; pedagogical knowledge; knowledge about learners; knowledge about curriculum) and skills (planning; communication classroom management; teaching; assessment; technology) (Moreno 2010). The pedagogical competence should be trained and assessed carefully.

There are five universities and nine faculties in specialized universities which are responsible for training TVET students to become TVET teachers. TVET students are trained in pedagogical competence by TVET teacher-trainers.

Table 1: Universities and faculties are assigned to train TVET teachers in Vietnam

So, how do universities and faculties identify levels of achieving pedagogical competence of students? Answers for the question will help institutions propose solutions to improve the quality of assessment of pedagogical competence of students.

3.2 Methodology

A parallel curriculum (engineering and pedagogic) in training TVET students becoming TVET teachers is applied at higher education universities of technology and education in Vietnam. Quantitative (questionnaires) and qualitative (interview, observation, document analysis) methods were used to gather data on status of assessing pedagogical competence of TVET students (from the first to the fourth year).

27 participants, which are TVET teacher-trainers, were selected to participate in this research. They are teaching pedagogical subjects, designing tests and assessing students’ pedagogical competence at universities/faculties. Furthermore, they must have a minimum of 3 years of relevant work experience.

Statistical analysis was also conducted to find out types of learning tasks and assessment techniques in 64 tests of 9 semesters within four the school years 2012-2013, 2013-2014, 2014-2015, and 2015-2016 at HCMUTE. These are written and multiple choice tests used in the summative assessment.

3.3 Conducting the research

This research was conducted from March to June 2017 at HCMUT, VLUTE, HYUTE, and School of Engineering Pedagogy (Hanoi University of Science and Technology). Since there were dilemmas in access to formative and summative tests at universities and faculties, a case study was conducted at HCMUTE to explore further types of learning tasks and assessment techniques applied to identify TVET students’ pedagogical competence.

3.4 Research findings

Later for identifying the status of assessing pedagogical competence of students, items were developed to gather data from TVET teacher-trainers about aims, criterions of assessing pedagogical competence of students; types of learning tasks and CBA techniques applied to assess pedagogical competence of students. The definition/aim/characteristics and CBA assessment techniques were manipulated to set up these items.

Every item was chosen and linked with one of five levels by participants:

1. Very rarely or never (0-10 per cent of the time)
2. Rarely (11-25 per cent of the time)
3. Occasionally (26-50 per cent of the time)
4. Very frequently (51-75 per cent of the time)
5. Always (more than 75 per cent of the time)

3.4.1 Aims of assessing pedagogical competence of students

In CBA approach, assessment is not directed to rank among student and identify achieved levels of knowledge and skills of students. It concentrates on assessment for learning and identifying the application of previously learned information in dealing with real-world problems (Khanh & Oanh 2015).

Results of the figure 1 showed that, there were 14.8 per cent participants assessing to rank among students in formative assessment with more than 75 per cent of the time. In summative assessment, the statistics of this aim is higher than 4.3 per cent. Especially, up to 63 per cent (in summative assessment) and 51.9 per cent (in formative assessment) participants assessed to identify achieved levels of knowledge and skills of students. Obviously, although CBA has been used in higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam, but there is a high rate of participants who misunderstand the aim of this approach.

TVET teacher trainers at HCMUTE shared that, there is not any content associated with CBA in the pedagogical training curriculum. This means TVET students are not trained in CBA to understand adequately. It is not difficult to find the similar status in the pedagogical training curriculums at other universities of technology and education in Vietnam. In addition, most TVET teacher trainers have a difficulty in accessing in-depth CBA studies in the world because of their limited English proficiency. Further studies on CBA in the Vietnamese university of technology and education context have not been still drawn researchers’ attention. These reasons seem to be main obstacles to adequately understand CBA in general and particularly the aims of CBA.

3.4.2 Criterions of assessing pedagogical competence of students

Levels of achieving knowledge were the most chosen criterion in more than 75 per cent of the time. It is the most significant criterion of ‘assess knowledge and skills’, not ‘CBA’. The other criterion of ‘assess knowledge and skills’ is the application of previously learned information in dealing with typical examples or situations. This criterion requires students to remember/recall practiced patterns/learned information and apply them to meet requirements of learning tasks. 29.6 per cent participants used this criterion in summative assessment compared with 25.6 per cent in formative assessment. These results proved the close relationship between aims and criterions of assessment.

3.4.3 Types of learning tasks in assessing pedagogical competence of students

Learning tasks can be seen as cognitive questions. Those are developed based on the Taxonomy of Education Objectives (Bloom et al. 1956) and the revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Anderson et al. 2001). The Taxonomy of Educational Objectives is a scheme for classifying educational goals, objectives, and, most recently, standards. It provides an organizational structure that gives a commonly understood meaning to objectives classified in one of its categories, thereby enhancing communication (Krathwohl 2002). In this research, learning tasks are linked closely with the six major categories in the cognitive domain: remember, understand, apply, analyse, evaluate, and create.

Types of learning tasks in assessing pedagogical competencies of students were identified by items engaged with the nature of the six major categories in the cognitive domain. These items were labelled in the following:

−     Type 1: Learning tasks require students to recognize knowledge from memory.

−     Type 2: Learning tasks require students to understand knowledge.

−     Type 3: Learning tasks require students to apply previously learned information in dealing with typical examples and situations.

−     Type 4: Learning tasks require students to apply previously learned information in dealing with new examples or non-typical situations.

−     Type 5: Learning tasks require students to apply previously learned information in dealing with real-world problems.

−     Type 6: Learning tasks require students to break down materials or concepts into parts and determine how the parts relate to one another or how they interrelate, or how the parts relate to an overall structure or purpose.

−     Type 7: Learning tasks require students to relate to parts of materials or concepts into new overall structures/models.

−     Type 8: Learning tasks require students to make judgments based on criteria and standards through checking and critiquing.

−     Type 9: Learning tasks require students to put elements together to form a coherent or functional whole as well as to reorganize elements into a new pattern or structure through generating, planning, or producing.

As you can see in the figure 3, learning tasks which require students to apply previously learned information in dealing with typical examples and situations were always used with the highest rate in both formative and summative assessment. In contrary, the higher applying levels, those are the application of learned information in dealing with new examples or non-typical situations or real-world problems were used less remarkably than the above level.

There was not much difference about the rate of participants using learning tasks at understanding versus applying, approximately 3.7 per cent. Although the rate of using learning tasks at remembering was rather lower than mentioned two categories, but it was higher than other categorizes of the higher cognitive domain such as analysing, evaluating and creating.

Overall, learning tasks belonging to higher thinking levels were used with the low rate in more than 75 per cent of the time. Only 14.8 per cent to 18.5 per cent participants did apply them in formative assessment. The rate of using learning tasks at analysing, evaluating in summative assessment was similar. Furthermore, the rate of using learning tasks at creating was the lowest with 7.4 per cent participants chosen.

In summary, learning tasks were engaged with the six major categorizes of cognitive domain. Learning tasks at the lower cognitive levels were always used more than learning tasks at the higher cognitive.

Further studies on 64 summative tests with 172 questions in 9 semesters from the school year of 2012-2013 to the first semester of the school year of 2016-2017 at HCMUTE showed a meaningful relationship among above analysed results of learning tasks with teaching and assessing pedagogical competencies of students. As you can see the figure 4, questions at the level of evaluating and creating have not been completely applied for many years. This trend seems to be contrary to requirements of the quality of teachers in the fourth industrial revolution and education 4.0 in which critical and creative thinking are the core competencies of workers. In addition, education is not only a science, but also an art. So, we believe that, lack of evaluating and creating in education will become big obstacles to diversify forms and teaching methods as well as assessment in the classroom.

The figure 4 also revealed that students’ pedagogical competence was assessed at all four levels of cognition. However, the rate of questions at understanding is the highest. On the other hand, there were 13.1 per cent questions requiring students to recognize knowledge from memory. Question at the level of application and analysis were also used but with a much lower rate than the question at the level of understand.

3.4.4 CBA techniques in assessing pedagogical competence of students

As we can see in the figure 5, many CBA techniques were applied to assess pedagogical competence of students in almost all levels. While multiple choices were always used the most widely in formative assessment, written test was the most popular in summative assessment. These technique meets requirements of learning tasks designed based on categorizes of remembering and understanding.

Although essay seems to be suitable to assess learning tasks at analysing, evaluating and creating, but the rate of using it was lower than multiple choices and written test. There were not any differences about the rate of using oral test and practice in both formative and summative assessment. Only 18.5 per cent participants used them very frequently and always.

On the other hand, checklist was used at least in comparison with others assessment techniques those have been mentioned in this study.

In brief, students seem to be required to remember/understand more than apply/analyse/evaluate and create based on previously learned information.

Is there any relationship between results of applying CBA techniques in general and the case study? A quantitative research concerning with 64 summative tests at HCMUTE revealed that written test, multiple choices and practice were main assessment techniques. Written tests occurred in almost every one of the 64 tests, multiple choices and particularly practice were used with the very remarkably lower rate. These statistics can be clear evidences about using assessment techniques not directed to higher cognitive levels in assessing pedagogical competence of students at HCMUTE (see the figure 6).

4 Conclusion

CBA is the new approach for assessing students’ pedagogical competence in higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam. CBA concentrates on assessing the application of previously learned information in dealing with real-world problems. CBA does not only provide students with evidences to self- recognize their own skills and knowledge but also regulate teaching and learning.

Quantitative and qualitative results on the status of assessing students’ pedagogical competence at higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam revealed that aims of CBA were misunderstood. Criterions and learning tasks were mainly directed to assess understanding and remembering knowledge more than applying, analysing, evaluating and creating. Although CBA assessment techniques were applied quite numerously, but multiple choices and written test were still the most popular technique in formative and summative assessment. These techniques are more relevant to assessing pedagogical competence at understanding and remembering level.

Lack of further studies on CBA, not to be trained in CBA formally and limited English proficiency of TVET teacher-trainers seem to be main barriers to understand CBA adequately and apply CBA in the Vietnamese university of technology and education context. Hence, theoretical knowledge and skills on CBA should be developed in pedagogical curriculum at universities of technology and education. Further studies on CBA need to be conducted in the Vietnamese universities of technology and education context. National or international seminars or workshops on CBA should be regularly organized to support TVET teacher trainers and TVET students to understand and effectively apply it in teaching and assessing students’ pedagogical competence.

It is also believed that changing the awareness of TVET teacher trainers on CBA and developing assessment tools according to the higher cognitive levels will strengthen the quality of applying CBA in assessing students’ pedagogical competence at higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam.

References

Anderson, L. W. & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.

Angelo, A. & Cross, P. (1993). Classroom Assessment Techniques: A Handbook for College Teachers (2nd Edition). San Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.), Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. New York: David McKay.

Elui, E. P. (2008). Integrating assessment into the lesson plan to improve learning: A focus on Nigerian Primary Schools. Online: http://www.iaea.info/documents/paper_2b7120477.pdf (retrieved 07.10.2017).

Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2007). Checking for Understanding: Formative Assessment Techniques for Your Classroom. Alexandria, Virginia, USA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Heffernan, N. T. & Koedinger, K. R. (2012). Integrating assessment within instruction: A look forward. Online: http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/session4-koedinger-paper-tea2012.pdf (retrieved 11.11.2017).

Ion, G., Fernandez-Ferrer, M., García, J., & Cano, E. (2015). Competencies-based assessment in Higher Education: The opinion of teachers and academic coordinators. Online: http://www.eera-ecer.de/ecer-programmes/conference/20/contribution/34957/ (retrieved 02.09.2017).

Irons, A. (2008). Enhancing Learning through Formative Assessment and Feedback. New York: Routledge.

Khanh, N. & Oanh, D T. K. (2015). Test and Assessment in Education. Hanoi National University of Education Publishing House.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. In: Theory to Practice, 41, 4, 212-218. Online: http://www.depauw.edu/files/resources/krathwohl.pdf (retrieved 11.11.2017).

Moreno, R. (2010). Educational Psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Oanh, D. T. K. (2016). Developing core competencies of students through Competence based assessment at Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education. In: TVET@Asia, 7, 1-17. Online: http://www.tvet-online.asia/issue7/duong_tvet7.pdf (retrieved 01.09.2017).

Oosterhof, A. (2003). Developing and Using Classroom Assessment (3rd Edition). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.

Phye, G. D. (1997). Handbook of Classroom Assessment: Learning, Achievement, and Adjustment. San Diego: Academic Press.

Western Australia Department of Training and Workforce Development (2013). Guidelines for assessing competence in VET (5th Edition). Online: http://vetinfonet.dtwd.wa.gov.au/Resourcesandlinks/Documents/Publications2013/5%20Guidelines%20for%20assessing%20competence%20%205th%20Ed%20%282013%29.pdf (retrieved 10.08.2017).

William, D. (2004). Keeping learning on track: integrating assessment with instruction. Online: http://www.dylanwiliam.org/Dylan_Wiliams_website/Papers_files/IAEA%2004%20paper.pdf (retrieved 15.09.2017).

Wolf, A. (1995). Competence-Based Assessment. Buckingham, Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Citation

Duong, T.K.O. (2018). A new approach for Assessment of Pedagogical Competence of students at higher education institutions of technology and education in Vietnam. In: TVET@Asia, issue 10, 1-15. http://www.tvet-online.asia/issue10/duong_tvet10.pdf (retrieved 31.01.2018).

The collaborative problem solving (CPS) competency is one of the important competencies meeting requirements of any job position in the 21st century. Researches have concentrated on assessing and developing high school students’ CPS competency rather than engineering students. Furthermore, researches also indicate that organizing experiential learning (EL) activities is one of the most effective ways to develop students’ CPS competency. Therefore, research on developing CPS competency by organizing EL activities was conducted in Vietnam. The main purpose of the study is to find a process of training engineering students’ CPS competency by organizing experiential learning activities. 

Findings were based on two main fundamentals, including the theoretical foundation on the CPS competency and organizing experiential learning activities and the status of organizing EL activities and engineering students’ participation in EL activities to develop their CPS competency at technical higher education institutions in Vietnam. A process of training engineering students’ CPS competency is developed based on these fundamentals. The proposed process of training engineering students’ CPS competency comprises four stages: (1) Designing EL activities, (2) Implementing EL activities, (3) Organizing reflective, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation and (4) Assessment of students’ performance. Some minor suggestions to apply this process in the Vietnamese technical higher education institutions are also referred to.

Key words: collaborative problem solving, competency, experiential learning.

1 Introduction

The collaborative problem solving (CPS) was firstly mentioned by Stevens and Campion (1994), when the authors studied the requirements of knowledge, skills and attitude in working groups in the field of Human Resource Management. Since then, it has become one of the key competencies in the 21st century. Therefore, other authors and organizations have also drawn attention to the CPS competency such as Griffin & Care (2015), Oliveri, Lawless & Molloy (2017), the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and so on. Their and more researches have focused on finding CPS’s definitions, frameworks, processes, and assessments. In 2015, this competency was officially selected in PISA test for 15-years-old students by OECD. Although the concepts and frameworks of the CPS competency have been developed, there is still demand for of developing the CPS competency in higher education.

Experiential learning (EL) is a teaching approach requiring students to participate in practical learning contexts to self-construct their own experience. Participation in EL helps students to develop professional and general competencies (Hollis, Francine H.; Eren, Fulya (2016); Wu, Hyatt (2016); Jack, Kristen (2011), such as leadership skill (Kolb David (1982); Van Velsor, Gurvis (2007); Warnick (2014), teamwork skill (Le Thi Minh Hoa (2015), Kevin Eikenberry (2007)), interpersonal skill (Philip Burnard 1989), Silberman (2007). However, applying EL to develop engineering students’ CPS competency has not been dealt with by researchers so far.    

Therefore, this paper focuses on developing a process of training CPS competency of engineering students by organizing EL activities at technical higher education institutions in Vietnam.

2 The international discussion on the Collaborative Problem-Solving 2 Compeency and Expriential Learning

2.1 Collaborative Problem-Solving Cometency

CPS competency is “the capacity of an individual to effectively engage in a process whereby two or more agents attempt to solve a problem by sharing the understanding and effort required to come to a solution and pooling their knowledge, skills and efforts to reach that solution” (OECD 2017, 9). 

The framework of CPS competency differs among studies. Griffin and Care (2015) developed a CPS framework with two broad skill classes: Social skills and cognitive skills. There are three components in social skills (participation, perspective taking and social regulation) and two domains of cognitive skills (task regulation, and learning and knowledge building). 

Meanwhile, OECD (2017) identified that collaboration and problem-solving the CPS competency. The collaboration includes three sub – components: (1) establishing and sharing, (2) taking appropriate action to solve the problem, (3) establishing and maintaining group organization. The Problem-solving has four sub-components: (1) exploring and understanding, (2) representing and formulating, (3) planning and executing, (4) monitoring and reflecting. 

A broader approach was conducted by María Elena Oliveri et al. (2017) who proposed four main components (teamwork, communication, leadership and problem solving) and 17 sub-components of CPS competency. Teamwork was divided into 6 sub-components: (1) team cohesion, (2) team empowerment, (3) team learning, (4) self-management, (5) adaptability/flexibility, (6) open-mindedness. Communication included active listening and exchanging information. Leadership had five sub-components: (1) organizing activities and resources, (2) performance monitoring, (3) reorganizing when facing with obstacles, (4) resolving conflicts, (5) transformational leadership. Problem solving consisted of five sub-components: (1) identifying problems, (2) brainstorming, (3) planning, (4) interpreting and analyzing, (5) implementing and evaluating.

Although the framework of CPS competency is inconsistent among these studies, two main components are mentioned in all of these studies: Collaboration and teamwork and problem solving. The collaborative component reflects on the interaction of members that work together in groups. It includes factors relating to organizing groups, participating in groups, and managing members in groups, etc. Meanwhile, the problem solving component focuses on how a team member solves a problem. The problem solving component consists of sub-components such as: analyzing, identifying and defining the problem, proposing solutions, deciding, planning and implementing, monitoring and evaluation. 

Respecting the international discussion on CPS competency, this paper suggests the CPS framework includes 2 main components, 7 sub-components and 12 indicators as presented in table 1.

Table 1:          The proposed CPS competency Framework

2.2 Experiential Learning

The underlying concept of EL is not new. Confucius already said: “Tell me, and I will forget. Show me, and I may remember. Involve me, and I will understand” (cited in Kujalová & Jitka 2005, 1). The perspectives of EL also mentioned on published works of John Dewey (1938), Jean Piaget (1950), Kurt Hahn (1957), Lev Vygotsky (1978), David Kolb (1984), Melvin L. Silberman (2007), Colin Beard and John P. Wilson (2013). This paper identifies the term “experiential learning” according to two approaches:

−      Experiential learning is the process of learning through experience and is more specifically defined as “learning through reflection on doing” (Felicia 2011). “These experiences actively immerse and reflectively engage into the inner world of the learner , as a whole person (including physical-bodily, intellectually, emotionally and spiritually) with their intricate ‘outer world’ of the learning environment (including belonging and doing – in places, spaces, within social, cultural, political context etc.) to create memorable, rich and effective experiences for and of learning” (Beard & Wilson 2006).

−      Experiential learning is the participation of learners directly in the learning process to form and develop interpersonal experiences. The learning process consists of various activities such as simulation-based learning, project-based learning, learning games, story-telling, creative play and so on (Silberman 2007). 

Based on the two approaches above, this paper proposes the working definition: “Experiential learning is the learning process from experiences in which learners participate directly in practical or simulated learning tasks to form and develop new experiences”. 

The term “organize” is defined as “arrange systematically” or “order”. This article also suggests other working definition: “Organizing EL activities is to arrange systematically experiential teaching and learning activities to attract learners to participate directly in practical or simulated learning tasks to form and develop new experiences”. 

Parallel with indicating the terms of EL and organizing EL activities, ways of organizing EL activities have also drawn researchers’ attention. Michelle Schwartz (2012) and Cantor (1995) organized EL activities via five main stages: planning, designing, implementing, reflecting and assessing. These stages are summarised below:

Stage 1: Planning experiential learning activities

When beginning to think about a way of integrating an experiential component into a course, there are 3 main steps should be taken into consideration:

−      Determining learners’ expectations and analyzing learners’ prior relevant experience, knowledge, skills, etc.,

−      Identifying appropriate activities for learners and course Content,

−      Identifying prospective issues when integrating experiential learning.

Stage 2: Designing experiential learning activities

In this stage, teachers should: 

−      Define contents to be structured into EL activities,

−      Think about how to create potential activities to match with learning Outcomes,

−      Determine places to organize EL activities: inside or outside classroom,

−      Identify assessment tools and criteria.

EL activities should be structured into leaning projects, assignments, or learning tasks. Students should participate in more challenging EL activities to self-construct their knowledge and skills.

Stage 3: Implementing experiential learning activities

Unlike a traditional classroom, in an experiential classroom, an instructor has the role of a guide, a cheerleader, a facilitator or scaffolder to carry out activities in stages 1 and 2. Michelle Schwartz (2012) also mentioned that when carrying out EL activities, teachers should:

−      Provide students with essential information such as purposes, objectives, main contents, contents related to experiential activities,

−      Establish general and specific rules to implement EL activities,

−      Prepare learning and teaching aids to implement EL activities,

−      Instruct students of how to join in EL activities,

−      Inform students about criteria of EL activities.

Stage 4: Reflecting experiential learning activities

Reflection stage is an essential stage in organizing EL activities. The stage helps students understand exactly what reflection is and how to use the process to deepen their learning. To help students reflect effectively, teachers need to organize two stages. The “presenting reflection” helps students to be accustomed with the concept and methodology of reflection by providing examples and let them apply some small exercises. The second stage deepens students’ understanding of reflection and helps to improve their ability to reflect on a more complex level. 

Stage 5: Assessing experiential learning activities

Assessment is an indispensable stage of the EL process. It provides instructors and learners with basic information about what has been achieved and what needs to be improved. Some assessment methods are often used to assess EL activities such as: short answer questions, portfolio, and rubrics.

To make 5 stages of organizing EL activities above comes true, instructors need to apply specific EL activities such as: watching a video or simulation, demonstration, group work, instructional puzzles, games, role plays, working in simulate or real situations, on-the-job training, laboratory/workshop practice, group assignments, problem – solving, project-based learning, situated learning, field trips, internship, self and peer assessment, interactive lecturers, and so on (Melvin L. Silberman 2006, 2007), Philip Burnard (1989), Steve Suger and Kim Kostoroski Suger (2002), Ágota Dobos (2014), Michelle Schwartz (2012), and others. 

Based on the real teaching and learning conditions in Vietnamese technical higher education institutions, 6 EL activities are chosen to train engineering students’ CPS including observation, active learning, project-based learning or assignment, practice or hands-on learning, self-assessment and peer-assessment, identity problems and make plans. These EL activities are applied inside and outside of the classroom and are linked very closely with a proposed process of training engineering students’ CPS competency through by organizing EL, which  is explained in the last part of this paper.

3 Status of organizing experiential learning activities of lectures and engeneering students’ participation in these experiential learning activities to develop their Collaborative Problem-Solving Competency

3.1 Organizing the research

The status of organizing EL activities of lecturers and engineering students’ participation in these EL activities to develop their CPS competency is found by collecting and analyzing data from a survey at 3 universities in the South of Vietnam. These universities are Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education (HCMUTE), Industrial University of Ho Chi Minh City (IUH) and Can Tho University (CTU). The scope of this paper only provides an overview of research organizing and main findings of the research on lecturer’s organization concerning EL activities and engineering students’ participation in these EL activities to develop their CPS competency.  

Deriving from the international discussion on CPS competency and EL as well as proposed working definitions, organizing the research comprises the steps below:

Step 1: Designing students’ questionnaires

The purpose of collecting data from students’ questionnaire is to discover the following main issues: The status of students’ participation in EL activities, the status level of engineering students’ CPS competency, the relationships between technical students’ participants in EL activities and the changing of CPS competency level. 

To achieve these purposes, which are based on literature review on framework of CPS competency, EL groups of activities, and the students’ questionnaire was developed. The content of the student’s questionnaire included 2 main parts: (1) questions related to six EL activities, and (2) questions investigating twelve indicators in the CPS competency framework. Five level Likert scale (from level 1: strongly disagree to level 5: strongly agree) was used in all the questions of the second part.

Before conducting the main survey, a pilot survey was carried out with 97 engineering students at HCMUTE. The 1^st factor analysis was applied to confirm designed items belonging to 6 groups of EL activities as well as 12 indicators of CPS competency framework or not. The 1st reliability of individual items (Cronbach’s Alpha index) was also implemented to eliminate inappropriate variables. All the valuable items were selected, and some verification items were added in the formal Survey.

The formal questionnaire was distributed to 1050 students at 3 universities in Vietnam, including HCMUTE, IUH and CTU. However, only 705 reliable responses were selected for data analysis. The 2^nd factor analysis and 2^nd reliability of individual items were again implemented to remove invalid variables in the formal questionnaire. Finally, 29 items in 6 groups of EL activities and 63 items in 12 indicators of CPS competency were eligible for selection. 

Step 2: Designing lecturers’ questionnaire 

The main purpose of collection data from lecturers’ questionnaire is to explore the status of stages in organizing EL activities, including: planning, designing and organizing EL activities.

The questionnaire was a qualitative test and was adjusted before conducting the official survey. More than 130 questionnaires were delivered to lecturers from 3 universities in Vietnam, but only 97 responses were reliable.

Step 3: Analyzing data

The appropriate statistical package, including: Compute variables (all items in a group or indicator were computed into a variable), frequency and percentage, mean, correlation, regression was applied to analyze the reliable data collected from lecturers’ and students’ questionnaire. 

To find a scientific base for developing a process of training the CPS competency of engineering students by organizing EL activities, this paper will concentrate on two main findings from the Status:

−      Status of organizing EL activities of lecturers and engineering students’ participation in these EL activities to develop their CPS competency.

−      Status of relationship between engineering students’ participation in EL activities and CPS competency of engineering students. 

3.2 Findings of Status of organizing experiential learning activities by lecturers’ and Engineering students’ participation in These experiential learning activities to develop their collaborative problem-solving competency 

3.2.1 Status of organizing EL activities by lecturers and Engineering students’ participation in These EL activities to develop their CPS competency

Table 2: Mean of organizing EL activities of lecturers and engineering students’                        participation in these EL activities

The column (2) of the Table 2 indicates the mean of organizing EL activities of lecturers. Figures show that mean value of “practice and hands-on learning” is only 2.62 and is the lowest level among the 6 activities, while the mean value of “identify problems and make plans” is the highest (mean = 3.68). Among 6 EL activities, mean of two activities, including “identify problems and make plans”, “do active learning” are 3.68, 3.64 respectively and are all higher than 3.4. Means of other activities are lower than 3.4. It can be noted in general that, lecturers frequently organized 2 among 6 EL activities (active methods, identify problems and make plans) and only occasionally organized activities such as “do observation”, “do project based learning or complex assignment”, “self-assess and peer-assess learning results” and “practice and hands-on learning” for students to take part in. 

The column (3) of the Table 2 illustrates the mean value of student’s’ participation in 6 EL activities. Numbers indicated that no mean value in of the 6 activities is higher than 3.4. The mean value of “practice and hands-on learning” is only 2.19 and the only one below 2.6. The others mean values vary from 2.92 to 3.39. These figures reveal that engineering students participated in these EL activities such as “do observation”, “do active learning”, “do project based learning or complex assignment”, “Self-assessed and peer-assessed learning results”, “identify problems and make plans” more occasionally than “practice and hands-on learning” activity.

The column (4) of the Table 2 points out the difference between mean of lecturers’ organization and students’ participation in EL activities. All values are positive proving that there is a significantly difference between lecturers’ organization and students’ participation in all EL activities. The tendency is that the level of organizing El activities of lecturers is higher than the level of participating students. Furthermore, correlation analysis between mean of teachers’ organizing and students’ participation was 0.82 (high correlation). It means that the more lecturers organize EL activities, the more students take part in.

In short, the findings revealed that lecturers occasionally and frequently organized EL activities but students occasionally and rarely participated in these EL activities. Although there were differences between levels of organizing EL activities of lecturers and engineering students’ participation in these EL activities but organizing EL activities of lecturers has a great influence on the students’ participation.

3.2.1 Status of relationship between Engineering students’ partcipation in EL activitis and CPS cometency of engineering students

Status of relationshipbetween Engineering students’ participation in EL activities and 

Status of relationship between engineering students’ participation in EL activities and CPS competency of engineering students will focus on two major issues: the correlation between each group of EL activities with CPS competency and the correlation among groups of EL activities with CPS competency.

−      The correlation between each group of EL activities and CPS competency.

The Pearson correlation was applied to discover the relationships between each group of EL activities with CPS competency. The analysis result is as follows

All Sig. values in Table 3 are .000, all Pearson correlation values are positive and there are two stars (**) in all Pearson correlation values. So, there are significant correlations between the 6 EL groups of activities with CPS competency. More exactly, the frequency of the participation in EL activities is in direct proportion to CPS competency. The correlation values of two EL groups: “identify problems and make plans” and “self-assess and peer-assess learning results” are higher than the others (r = .616 and .524). It can be deduced that engineering students’ CPS competency will develop through the participation in all EL activities, especially the participation in 2 EL activities, including “identify problems and make plans” and “self-assess and peer-assess learning results”.

Table 3: Pearson correlation between each group of EL activities and CPS                                  competency

–                   The correlation among EL activities and CPS competency 

The Regression analysis was carried out to explore which groups of EL activities will have an effect on the development of CPS competency. The tables below will describe the results of the analysis.

Table 4:Model Summary

^e Predictors: (Constant), Identify problems and make plans, do observation, do project based learning or complex assignment, do active learning

Table 5: ANOVA

Adjusted R Square value in the model 5 of Table 4 is .43. It means that 4 groups of EL activities (identify problems and make plans, do observation, do project-based learning or complex assignment, do active learning) together can explain 43.0% of the CPS competency change. Although having correlation with CPS competency, but the 2 remain groups of EL activities “practice and hands-on learning”, “self-assess and peer-assess learning results” do not belong to the regression model.

F-statistics were carried out to find the overall strength of the model. The value of F-statistic 108.891 and Sig. = .000 < 0.005 shows that the model is highly significant.

Table 6: Coefficients

B value of all 4 groups of EL activities in the model are in positive direction, T and Sig. value are also significant. Therefore, there are a positive relationship among 4 groups of EL activities in the regression model, including: “identify problems and make plans”, “do observation”, “do project based learning or complex assignment”, and “do active learning” with CPS competency.  

The beta values in Table 6 show that “identify problems and make plans” get the highest number (.289). The beta value of “do observation”, “do project based learning or complex assignment”, and “do active learning” are .080, .063, .043 in that order. Thus, it can be predicted that four EL activities in this model will have influence on CPS competency in a positive way. Moreover, it can also be inferred that if engineering students participate in all four factors in the regression model, there will be a change of about 43.0% of their CPS competency in positive way, in which activities belonging to “identify problems and make plans” have the strongest influence on. 

In brief, six EL activities have an impact on the development of engineering students’ CPS competency in a positive way. In which, EL activities such as “identify problems and make plans”, “do observation”, “do project based learning or complex assignment and “do active learning”) contribute 43.0% to the development. The findings also prove a necessity of integrating these EL activities in a process of training the collaborative problem-solving competency of engineering students through organizing experiential learning activities in Vietnamese technical higher education institutions.

4 Develop a process of training the Collaborative Problem-Solving Competency of Engeneering Students by Organizing xperiential Learning Activities

Based on the proposed CPS competency, the working definitions such as EL and organizing EL activities and the status of organizing experiential learning activities of lecturers and engineering students’ participation in these experiential learning activities to develop their collaborative problem-solving competency in Vietnam, this paper suggests a process of training the collaborative problem-solving competency of engineering students by organizing experiential learning activities. 

The suggested process comprises four main stages: (1) designing El activities; (2) implementing EL activities; (3) organizing reflection, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation; (4) assessing student’s performance. Each stage includes some steps or activities as illustrated in the figure 1. Furthermore, the process also indicates main roles of teachers or students in conducting each step/task in the direction of arrows. If the arrow comes from the teacher, it means that the teacher has a key role in the implementation of activities. If the arrow goes outcomes from the students, they will have a leading role in conducting activities. 

Figure 1:       The process of training the CPS competency of engineering students through by organizing EL activities

Stage 1:  Designing experiential learning activities

Lecturers should conduct the five following steps: 

−      Analyzing leaners’ level: Determining the level of the learners is very important because it helps the teacher to select the appropriate EL activities for their students. Lecturers should know about learner’s prior experience, knowledge, skills, attitude, and needs related to the content as well as student’s abilities in working in group and solving problem. 

−      Analyzing learning outcomes: Lecturers have to analyze all learning outcomes of the subject not only the ones related to content that will be taught but also is the ones relevant to CPS framework components.

−      Analyzing and defining contents: Lecturers have to define which subject’s contents are suitable to organize EL activities for student working in group to solve problems. 

−      Designing EL activities: Designing activities may be the most difficult and important step in this stage. In this step, teachers have to:

o   Select one or more specific and suitable EL activities: observation, active learning, project-based learning or assignment, practice or hands-on learning. It is better for lecturers to combine flexibly some EL activities together in a project or assignment. 

o   Think of and decide on suitable places where EL activities can take place: inside/ outside/ or inside and outside classroom. 

o   Design or add activities that require students to work with CPS components such as: organizing their group, participating, sharing knowledge, especially defining the problem and designing a plan, etc. 

o   Think about how the potential activity complements the overall aim of study.

o   Prepare enough and suitable materials, media, and rules for organizing EL activities.

−      Designing assessment methods and criteria: Develop criteria and assessment tools matching the proposed EL activities and EL methods. These tools should consist of students’ self – assessment, peer – assessment and lecturers’ assessment of students’ performance in collaboration, problem solving as well as their relevant learning Outcomes.

Stage 2: Implementing EL activities. 

Lecturers should do four main Tasks:

−      Provide essential information and establish rules: lecturers provide students with sufficient information which is relevant to EL activities such as: learning outcomes, main content, requirements, grading criteria and evaluation methods, and so on. Furthermore, general and detail regulations, time, interaction ways, and others should be set up. 

−      Organize EL activities: lecturers apply various EL methods to organize EL activities. Lecturers function as a guide, cheerleader, facilitator or scaffolder to help students’ orientation, solve problems and self-construct their own knowledge and skills.

−      Provide tools, assessment methods and criteria: 

−      Lecturers supply tools for students to participate in EL activities such as group work, summary skills, feedback, etc. Besides, how to work with the CPS competency framework (organize the group and set up ways to contact, participate in the group, manage the group, identify and define problems, propose and select feasible solutions, implement plans, monitor and assess results) should also be guided.

−      Lecturers provide students with assessment methods and criteria (self-assessment, peer-assessment)

−      Monitor students’ implementation: lectures keep in track with students’ implementation and give feedback constantly.

Stage 3: Organizing reflection, abstract conceptualization and active experimentation

Lecturers should:

−      guide students how to do reflection on students’ experience

−      organize groups of students to reflect on what has been experienced through the learning content as well as collaboration and problem-solving ways

−      instruct and organize students to work in group to conceptualize theory based on what they have experienced and reflected on

−      organize another EL activities for students to apply the theory so that they develop abstracted conceptualization

Stage 4:assessing students’ performance

The main purpose of the stage is to know about students’ performance related to learning outcomes and CPS competency, to find out if students work well or not and give students positive feedback. The third part includes students themselves, group members and teachers. They should participate in this stage. Furthermore, lecturers also should: 

−      repeat assessment methods and criteria for students

−      guide students to do self-assessment to develop students’ self-reflective ability

−      organize assessment activities, in which students do self and peer-assessment

−      give positive feedback, summarize EL activities and with a conclusion

In summary, the four-stage process of training the CPS competency of engineering students through organizing EL activities were developed based on the theoretical basement on the CPS competency and organizing experiential learning activities and the status of organizing EL activities and engineering students’ participation in EL activities to develop their CPS competency at technical higher education institutions in Vietnam.

5 Conclusion

To develop engineering students’ CPS competency for meeting requirements of engineers’ competencies in the workplace, technical higher education institutions in Vietnam need to find a process to train this competency in the entire learning process.

This paper develops the process of training engineering students’ CPS competency through by organizing EL activities based on studying on the international discussions on CPS competency and EL as well as findings of the status of organizing EL activities and engineering students’ participation in EL activities to develop their CPS competency at technical higher education institutions in Vietnam.

To apply this process in the Vietnamese technical higher education institutions, some minor following suggestions should be implemented: 

For Vietnamese technical higher education institutions:

−      Redesigning project -based learning and curriculum.

−      Integrating EL activities into project -based learning and curriculum.

−      Designing and organizing EL activities that are more relevant to technical students and their           learning in and outside of the classroom.

Lecturers should shift from content-based teaching approach to competence-based teaching approach in which the teaching concentrates is focused on learners and their learning activities. EL activities need to be integrated into learning and teaching activities. Students need to change from learning alone to collaborative learning through experience to self-construct their knowledge and skills.

References

Cantor, J.- A. (1995). Experiential Learning in Higher Education: Linking Classroom and Community. In: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No.7. Washington, D.C: The George Washington University.

Beard, C. & Wilson, J.- P. (2006). Experiential Learning: A Best Practice Handbook for Educators and Trainers (2nd edition). London: Kogan.

Beard, C. & Wilson, J.- P. (2013). Experiential Learning: A hand book for education, training and coaching (3rd edition). London: Kogan.

Burnard, P. (1989). Teaching Interpersonal Skills: A handbook of experiential learning for health professionals. New York: Springer.

Eikenberry, K. (2007). Experiential Learning in Team Training. In Silberman, M.-L. (eds.). (2007): The Handbook of Experiential Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 256 – 271.

Felicia, P. (2011). Handbook of Research on Improving Learning and Motivation. Hershey: IGI Global.

Hesse, F. (2015). A Framework for Teachable Collaborative Problem Solving Skills. In Griffin, P., Care, E. (eds.): Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Methods and Approach. Dordrecht: Springer, 37 – 56.

Le Thi, M. (2015). Development Collaborative competency through outside classroom activities for secondary school students, Dissertation. Vietnam: The Vietnam Institute of Educational Sciences.

Hollis, F. & Eren, F. (2016). Implementation of Real-World Experiential Learning in a Food Science Course Using a Food Industry-Integrated Approach. In: Journal of Food Science Education,15, 4, 109-119.

Jack, K. (2011). The Role of Experiential Learning in Nurturing Management Competencies in Hospitality and Tourism Management Students: Perceptions from Students, Faculty, and Industry Professionals. Online: https://eric.ed.gov/?q=develop+competency+and+experiential+learning&id=ED533389 (retrieved 21.01.2019).

Kujalová, J. (2005). Use of Experiential Learning in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (M.A. thesis). Masaryk University. Online:                                 https://is.muni.cz/th/eft54/text.pdf (retrieved 21.01.2019).

Kolb, D., Lublin, S., Spoth, J. &  Baker, R. (1982). Strategic Management Development: Using Experiential Learning Theory to Assess and Develop Managerial Competencies. In:  Journal of Management Development, 5, 3, 13–24.

Kolb D. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and Development. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Oliveri, M., René, L. & Hillary, M. (2017). A Literature Review on Collaborative Problem Solving for College and Workforce Readiness. In: GRE Board Research Report No. 17-03. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

O’Neil, H.& Chung, G. (2004). Issues in the computer- based assessment of collaborative problem solving. In: Assessment in Education, 10, 3, 361-373.

OECD (2017). Pisa 2015 Collaborative Problem Solving Framework. Online: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf (retrieved 21.01.2019).

Schwartz, M. (2012). Best Practices in Experiential learning. Online: https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/lt/resources/handouts/ExperientialLearningReport.pdf (retrieved 21.01.2019).

Stevens, M.-J. & Campion, M. (1994). The knowledge, skill and ability requirements for teamwork: Implications for human resources management. In: Journal of Management, 20, 2, 502–528.

Van Velsor, E. & Gurvis, J. (2007). Experiential Learning in Leadership Development. In Silberman, M. (ed.): The Handbook of Experiential Learning. San Francisco: Pfeiffer, 306.

Warnick, G.-M., Schmidt, J. &  Bowden, A.-E. (2014). An Experiential Learning Approach to Develop Leadership Competencies in Engineering and Technology Students. Indianapolis: 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition.

Wu, W. &  Hyatt, B. (2016). Experiential and project-based learning in BIM for sustainable living with tiny solar houses. In: Procedia Engineering 145, 579 – 586.

Citation

Dieu, H. -T. -D., Duing, T. -K.-O. & Bich, H. –N. –V. (2019). Development of a Training Process of Engineering Students’ Collaborative Problem-Solving Competency through Organizing Experiential Learning Activities – A Case Study in Vietnam. In: TVET@Asia, issue 12, 1-18. Online: http://www.tvet-online.asia/issue9/author_second_tvet12.pdf (retrieved 30.01.2019).

Core competencies can be defined as personal attributes or underlining characteristics, which, combined with technical or professional skills, enable an individual to fulfill a role/job. Core competencies such as problem solving or teamwork are basic/fundamental for technical competencies. To meet requirements of employers in Vietnam regarding engineers’ and technicians’ technical competencies and core competencies, higher education institutions should support students to develop these competencies in process of leaning. This paper reviews some theoretical approaches to Competence and Competence Based Assessment and applies them by developing core competencies of students at Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education. The application of Competence Based Assessment in developing core competencies of students must be consistent with learning outcomes, teaching methods and assessment.

Keywords: Competence, Core Competence, Competence Based Assessment, Team Work competence, Problem Solving Competence.

1 Introduction

Competence-based teaching has become an inevitable and general trend in the world, particularly in higher education. Compared to knowledge-based teaching, competence-based teaching has moved from “focus on knowledge” to “focus on competences” (Khanh & Oanh 2015). In this trend, Competence-Based Assessment (CBA) is considered a very important link to make the teaching process successful. Based on learning outcomes, curriculum or professional competence standards, CBA focuses on finding evidence to prove the various levels of applying knowledge, skills, attitude, values, and motivation in dealing with real-world problems.

Vietnam became a member of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) in December 2015. Joining AEC offers opportunities, but Vietnamese laborers also have to face many challenges such as foreign languages and professional competences, particularly the lack of core/general competences (problem solving, teamwork, creative thinking, critical thinking etc.). The World Bank and the Central Institute of Economic Management (CIEM) recently conducted a survey of 350 manufacturing and service sector firms in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City and surrounding provinces (cf. Bodewig 2012). It focused on understanding what employers think about the skills of their current workforce and what skills they are looking for. Almost all of the employers were not satisfied with the quality of education and skills of the available workforce, especially engineers and technicians.  Employers are not just looking for technical competence to do the job, but also equally expect what experts call “cognitive” and “social”, or “behavioral”, competences.

Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education (HCMUTE) is the leading university in Vietnam in educating and training technical and vocational teachers, engineers and technicians for the whole country, especially for the Southern region. Being aware of the requirements of employers regarding core competences of engineers and technicians, HCMUTE has faced two big questions: How to improve the quality of education? How to develop core competences for students? In this paper, we focus on finding the answer for the second question. At HCMUTE we develop core competences of students through Competence Based Assessment.

2 Theoretical approach to competence

2.1 Definition of competence

The concept of competence (in the British context) or competency (in the Australian context) is derived from Latin – Competentia means agreement or conjunction (Deißinger & Hellwig 2011). Prins and his colleagues have explained the difference between “competence” and “competency”: Competence is given a generic or holistic meaning and refers to a person’s overall capacity whereas competency refers to specific capabilities (knowledge, skill, attitude, ability) (Prins, Nadolski, Berlanga, Drachsler, Hummel, & Koper 2008).

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a competency is more than just knowledge and skills. It involves the ability to meet complex demands by drawing on and mobilizing psychosocial resources (including skills and attitudes) in particular. Crick (2008) shared the same opinion as OECD considering competence includes not only knowledge and skills: “A competence is best described as ‘a complex combination of knowledge, skills, understanding, values, attitudes and desire which lead to effective, embodied human action in the world, in a particular domain. Competence is therefore distinguished from skill which is defined as the ability to perform complex acts with ease, precision and adaptability”.  

Loc, Phuong, Khanh, Ry, & Que (2015) defined the concept of competence based on uniting 3 points:

• Competence is a dynamic structure, open, multi – element, multi – stratification, includes not only knowledge and skills, but also attitudes, values, beliefs, interest, motivation … and readiness to act in practical contexts or changeable situations.
• Competence is always associated with a specific activity. The formation, development, performance of competence will be expressed in and through activities.
• Competence must be measured and assessed based on learning outcomes and professional standards.

Drawing on the different views of “competence”, this paper proposes the following working definition: “Competence is a flexible conjunction and application of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, beliefs, motivations, interests, needs… to implement tasks or deal with complex real – world problems to achieve good results”.

2.2 Structure of Competence

Considering the development of competences, it is very important to clarify competence structure and components. There are also different types of competence models in the world that can be distinguished in models of competence structure (focus on the different types of competence) (horizontal models) and models of competence development (focus more on the different levels of competence: novice, advanced novice, competent, experienced, expert) (vertical models) (Grosch 2016). In the field of education, the models of competence structure have drawn more attention to researchers and are used more often than the models of competence development.

Frieling et al. (2007) distinguished models of competence structure in 4 categories (Ehlers 2013):

• Personal competences contain the attitude, values, motives, self – perception and self – organization.
• Social competences are communicative or cooperative skills in situation of interaction.
• Methodological competences are work – and department – comprehensive abilities (problem solving competence, learning competence…).
• Professional competences are abilities, capabilities, and skills, which are necessary for the accomplishment of work – specific requirements.

Based on a view that competences are required to handle new, unknown, and complex situations, Erpenbeck and Sauter (2007) have distinguished competences in personal, activity-based, functional – methodological and social – communicative competences (Ehlers 2013). Personal competence consists of self-confidence, courage and creativity. The functional-methodology competence is based on experiences, motives and hopes, which are necessary to solve a task. The social-communicative competence involves persuasiveness, willingness to agree, negotiation and openness, which are important for team work. The activity-based competence is the strength to enforce its conception. 

The OECD’s Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCo) Project’s conceptual framework for key competencies classifies competencies in three broad categories:

• Using tools interactively: Cater for the social and professional demands of the global economy and the information society, the individual is required to master the socio-cultural tools for interacting with knowledge, such as language, information, and knowledge, as well as physical tools such as computers. Using tools interactively opens up new possibilities in the way individuals perceive and relate to the world.
• Interacting in heterogeneous groups: In order to deal with the diversity of pluralistic societies, individual are required to learn, live and work with others. Interacting in heterogeneous environments includes many of the features associated with terms such as “social competencies”, “intercultural competencies”, to relate well to others; co-operate, work in teams; and to manage and resolve conflicts.
• Acting autonomously: Individuals must act autonomously in order to participate effectively in the development of society and to function well in different spheres of life including the workplace, family life and social life. Individuals need to create a personal identity in order to give their lives meaning, to define how they fit in. Acting autonomously competencies address many features associated with terms such as “act within the big picture”, “form and conduct life plans and personal projects”, and “defend and assert rights, interests, limits and needs”.

Based on The OECD’s Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCo) Project’s conceptual framework for key competencies, OECD distinguishes competence in 2 groups: core competences and technical competences. Core competencies can be defined as personal attributes or underlining characteristics, which combined with technical or professional skills, enable an individual to fulfil a role/job. The Core Competencies do not define individuals’ technical roles and accountabilities, nor do they include the technical skills necessary to do the jobs. On the contrary, technical competencies cover the various fields of expertise relevant to the specific work.

In Vietnam, distinguishing competences has recently become a topic of interest to researchers (Kiem, Ry & Que 2015). Vietnamese researchers’ focus is based on the OECD’s view. According to these researchers, competence can be classified into 2 groups: core/general competencies and professional/technical competencies. Core competencies and technical competencies are closely interlinked. Core competencies are the basic/fundamental of technical competencies. In contrast, the development of technical competencies will have an effect on core competencies. Ry, V.T and Que, D.X (2015) classified core competencies in 3 groups:

• Autonomous activity and personal development competencies contain self-study competence, problem-solving competence, creative competence…
• Social competencies contain communicative competence, teamwork competence…
• Tool competencies contain language competence, computer competence, calculate competence…

Respecting ideas of researchers above on competence structure in general and core competence structure in particular that there are different types of competence; we suggest a specific proposal of core competence with a clear interconnection among identified competence areas that might help to reach a common understanding of types of core competencies. The proposal of core competence is built with social and methodological competence (Frieling et al. 2007), personal and social competence (Erpenbeck & Sauter 2007), interacting in heterogeneous groups (DeSeCo), autonomous activity and personal development competencies and social competencies (Ry & Que 2015). The proposed main core competencies consist of team work competence, problem solving competence, communicative competence, cooperative competence, creative competence, critical thinking competence, self-management competence and conflict competence.

3 Theoretical approach to Competence Based Assessment

3.1 Definition of Competence Based Assessment

Competence based teaching is not only required to “teach knowledge” or “transfer knowledge”, but also focuses on developing technical competencies and core competencies of students, particularly problem solving competence, teamwork, creative competence, and critical thinking competence to adapt the social and professional demands of the global economy and the information society. Thus competence based teaching requires a change in learning outcomes, contents, teaching methods and especially assessment. In competence based teaching, assessment is required to change from “assess knowledge and skills” to “competence based assessment”. Competence-based assessment will focus on measuring different levels of applying knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, motives in performing tasks or dealing with complex real-world problems.

The same points in identifying the concept of “competence based assessment” of worldwide researchers are to collect evidence and make judgment on whether competence has achieved compared with learning outcomes or professional standards. According to Wolf (1995), “Competence -based assessment is a form of assessment that is derived from the specification of a set of outcomes; that so clearly states both the outcomes – general and specific – that assessors, students and interested third parties can all make reasonably objective judgments with respect to student achievement or non achievement of these outcomes; and that certifies student progress on the basis of demonstrated achievement of these outcomes. Assessments are not tied to time served in formal educational settings”. In this point, Alison emphasized outcomes – especially multiple outcomes, each distinctive and separately considered. Based on the learning outcomes and professional standards, assessors, students and ‘third parties’ should be able to understand what is being assessed, and what should be achieved.

In Guidelines for competency assessment in vocational education and training in Western Australia, competency based assessment is defined as the following: “Competency based assessment is the process of collecting evidence and making judgments on whether competence has been achieved. This confirms that an individual can perform to the standard expected in the workplace as expressed in the relevant endorsed industry/enterprise competency standards (or outcomes of accredited courses if there are no competency standards for an industry)”.

This paper builds on the following understanding of competence based assessment: Competence based assessment is an assessment approach based on learning outcomes (subjects or curriculum) or professional standards to make judgments on whether competence has been achieved through evidences associated with flexible application of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and personal attributes such as motives, interests, needs, beliefs … in implementing tasks or dealing with complex real – world problems”. Compared to knowledge or skills based assessment, competence based assessment must be based on learning outcomes or professional standards. Therefore, learning outcomes or professional standards have to be clear, transparent, measurable and attainable to make judgments on whether competence has been achieved objectively and precisely. Competence based assessment should be organized regularly via formative assessment and summative assessment, especially via formative assessment. Since individual’s competencies are formed and developed through implementing specific activities, so in the teaching process, competence based assessment is required to be implemented through activities combining theory with real-world problems. Competence-based assessment can be achieved through different types of assessment methods such as observation, conversation, group work, project based learning, situated learning, objective tests, essays, etc., and assessment tools such as cognitive scales, rubrics, portfolio, reports, questionnaires, situations etc. Based on intended criteria, assessors, students (self or peer assessment) and third parties participate in making judgments on whether competence has been achieved. Results from competence based assessment do not only prove individual’s levels of competencies, but also adjust teachers and learners’ activities.

3.2 Designing Competence Based Assessment tools

In order to apply the competence-based assessment in teaching, teachers need to design competence based assessment tools. The process of designing competence-based assessment tools should be based on the following steps (Thuy et al. 2015):

• Define the competence which will be assessed and performance areas of the competence.
• Define signs or characteristic features of the competence.
• Identify specific assessment criteria.
• Build the score scale.
• Consolidate the assessment tool.

Ex: Designing a tool to assess problem solving competence

We designed an assessment tool for problem solving competence based on Polya’s Problem Solving Techniques (Polya) and Problem solving rubric (Association of American colleges and universities – AACU). The performance areas, signs and specific criteria of the problem solving competence are described in a table below:

Table 1:            The description of the problem solving competence

After describing the problem-solving competence, a checklist was built to assess the learners’ problem-solving competence. To quantify the problem-solving competence in each criterion, we scored on 5-grade scale (1 is the lowest score and 5 are the highest score):

The score scale is detailed as follows:

• 1 point: No/not yet implemented
• 2 points: Implemented, but no clear results
• 3 points: Implemented with the initial results, with evidences but not clear
• 4 points: Implemented with rather good results, with clear evidences
• 5 points: Implemented with good results, with clear and adequate evidences

The maximum point for each criterion is 5. The maximum total point is 100.

Table 2:            The checklist of the problem solving competence

4 Developing core competences of students through Competence Based Assessment at Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education

HCMUTE has implemented the training programs (150 credits) according to the CDIO approach (Conceive; Design; Implement; Operate) since the school year of 2012 – 2013. CDIO is a methodology to build the curriculum, implement training and develop training toward assuring comprehensive education quality at undergraduate level. CDIO is an innovative educational framework for producing the next generation of engineers. The CDIO program is based on the principle that product, process, and system lifecycle development and deployment are the appropriate context for engineering education. CDIO is a model of the entire product, process, and system lifecycle. Therefore, applying the CDIO approach must carefully consider the consistency of learning outcomes, teaching and learning methods and assessment (Nhut & Trinh (translators) 2009).

With the CDIO framework, students need to gain four main knowledge and skill blocks: (1) technical knowledge and reasoning; (2) professional and personal skills and attitudes; (3) interpersonal skills and attitudes; (4) CDIO in social and enterprise context (Nhut & Trinh (translators) 2009). HCMUTE has integrated core competencies into training specialized on technical knowledge through technical subjects and optional subjects such as Presentation skill, Effective Plan skill, System thinking

Developing core competencies of students through Competence-Based Assessment must be linked closely with both learning outcomes and teaching and learning methods. In Competence-Based Assessment, students are required to apply knowledge, skills, attitudes, motives and beliefs to deal with complex real-world problems. Such problems are often built as a learning project. We encourage students to implement learning projects and assess their results. In the course of the learning project, students often work together in small groups (typically of about five students). The students have to define the problem, collect and analyze information, develop concrete plans, implement proposed solutions and finally evaluate the results. Individuals are not only required to learn and work with others, but also relate well to others, co-operate, manage and resolve conflicts in their team. These activities are the performance areas of problem solving, team work etc. and have been pointed out in designed Competence-Based Assessment Tools. Therefore, students’ core competencies are completely quantified by using these tools (the checklist). We can identify different levels of developing core competencies of students according to quantified results. An overview of a proposed plan to develop core competencies of students through Competence-Based Assessment in System Thinking subject is illustrated in the following.

Table 3:            Description of the plan to develop core competencies of students through Competence Based Assessment 

Assessing levels of developing students’ core competences must be based on results of performance areas of these competencies in concrete learning situations. Performance areas of core competencies will be expressed in the process of implement learning projects. We encourage students to implement learning projects according to the above plan with 5 steps as follows:

Step 1: Define the learning project topic, time allowed, team size and criteria
The lecturer states the learning project topic, time allowed, team size, and assessment criteria. The learning project topics are always a combination of theories and practical problems. Criteria are designed clearly and precisely.

Step 2: Develop specific plans to implement the learning project
Students make specific plans to implement the learning project. The plan often consists of time, resources, contents, intended results…

Step 3: Implement the learning project
Students implement the learning project according to their plan.

Step 4: Present results
Students present their results in front of the class. Questions concerning the projects will be asked by the other members.

Step 5: Assess results
The lecturer and the students assess results together based on the checklists.

The results of developing core competencies for student through competence based assessment will be analyzed in more detail in the following.

To help students to draw closer connections between the knowledge of analyzing and designing a system and building a real system as well as developing problem-solving competence and teamwork competence, students are required to implement the project topic 1: “Build a system (a bridge, a house, a device, a gift …) by recycling waste materials such as milk cartons, plastic bottles, cardboards, papers, textiles (clothes, woolen), aluminum (beverage cans)…”. The allowed time is one week. The team size is 5 – 7 students.

Example: A group of students from the Faculty of Electrical and Electronics Engineering built the model of Han River Bridge by recycling bamboo sticks, bulbs and wires. Students applied electrical and electronics knowledge to make the model of the bridge which can be rotated. This product can be used as a visual model in teaching. In this learning project about building a system by recycling waste materials, students from the Faculty of Electrical and Electronics Engineering defined the problem through answering questions: How is the system built? Which waste materials are used in building the system? How do they build the system by recycling waste material? What is the system for? The defined problem was to build the bridge system from waste material such as carton, paper, bamboo sticks.

Figure 1: The model of Han River Bridge from bamboo sticks, bulbs and wires

Besides defining the problem, students collected information to clarify the defined problem: What is the model of the bridge? What are waste materials? What are waste materials for? How do students make the bridge system rotatable? This information was analyzed and synthesized to help in proposing solutions. Students analyzed advantages and disadvantages of each solution, the ability and condition of the implementation, and selected the best appropriate solution: building the model of Han River Bridge rotated by recycling waste material such as bamboo sticks, bulbs and wires.

After collecting and analyzing information to propose a feasible solution, students made a specific plan to implement the learning project. Some points were done in the plan by students such as:

• Pointing out activities concerning with building the bridge need to be done;
• Listing waste materials used to build the bridge;
• Assigning tasks to each member of the group;
• Determining specific time for each member to complete the task;
• Showing intended results.

Students implemented the proposed solution according to the plan. Each member in the group did not only do the assigned tasks, but also cooperated with the other members to revise and complete the model. The leader Mr. Tuan said: “Each member in our team gave their own ideas to build a system by recycling waste materials. We analyzed and evaluated these ideas together. In the process of implementing the learning project, the lecturer is always accompanies and helps us to overcome differences in our ideas. We learned how to deal with the problem and work together”. When the Han River bridge model was finished, students evaluated the result by reviewing as well as pointing out advantages and disadvantages of the model. The group revised the rotation system of the bridge when the switch was turned on.

In this learning project, competence-based assessment is consistent with learning outcomes, helping the students to develop problem solving competence. Students did not only apply knowledge of analyzing and designing a system to deal with a real problem, but also defined the problem, collected and analyzed information, developed the plan, implemented the proposed solution and evaluated the result. These performance areas of the problem-solving competence of students were quantified by the lecturer and the students. In this case, students’ problem-solving competence gained 95/100 points.

In Project Topic 2, students were required to tackle the problem: “Build a tower from 200 straws and scotch tape”. The topic helps students link more closely about the knowledge of technical thinking related to structure and building a technical system as well as developing problem-solving competence and teamwork competence. The assessment criteria are that the highest tower and the last one standing will be the winners. The team size is suggested is 5 – 7 students. The time is allowed 30 minutes. Students implement the project in the classroom.

To build the tower be the highest and the most solid from 200 straws and scotch tape, students need co-operate to give different ideas about a model of the tower and select the most relevant model. After selecting the tower model, the leaders assign specific tasks to the members. The members build the tower within the limited time. The results must be presented in front of the class when the time is up.

Figure 2: The results of building towers from straws and scotch tapes

We divided the class into 5 groups. All groups had 200 straws and scotch tape to build the tower. After 30 minutes, the tower of group 5 was the highest and stood for the longest time. The tower of groups 2 and 4 were lower than the tower of group 5 but stood as long as the tower of group 5. The tower of group 3 collapsed in about 2.5 minutes while the tower of group 1 did the same 2 minutes later. Giving reasons why the tower of group 3 did not gain the criteria, a member of the group, said: “We started building the tower when we did not link the model of the tower and the way of building. The members did the task according to their individual ways. We did not cooperate in the progress of building the tower”. Members in group 1 faced the same problems like group 3. Each member did not relate well to others in the process of building the tower. In contrast, the members of group 5 built the model tower based on different ideas from the beginning. The leader assigned tasks for each member following the proposed model. Each member focused on doing the assigned tasks as well as he/she cooperated with other the members to carry out various activities of building the tower. Group 5 did not build the tower in time, but also meet the criteria well. The result of group work in this learning project shows that some students in our class still meet difficulties in relating well to others; co-operating and resolving conflicts in small groups.

According to Vietnam Development Report 2014, next to job-specific technical skills, team work and problem-solving skills are considered to be important behavioral and cognitive skills for workers. Employers are expecting that workers are critical thinkers, can solve problems and communicate well (Bodewig, Badiani-Magnusson, Macdonald, Newhouse & Rutkowski 2013). In higher education, technical or core competencies are developed through applying knowledge in tackling real situations. Some main causes can explain the shortage of core competencies of Vietnamese student such as:

• Applying teacher centered training approach from primary school level until higher education made students more passive. In this approach, students are mainly required to remember knowledge instead of applying knowledge in a practical context. Lecturers focus more on presenting knowledge than organizing for students working in small group to deal with real – world problems.
• One of the main psychological characteristics of most of Vietnamese students is that they are not willing to share their opinions in working groups. So some of them prefer to work according to their own way rather than collaborating with other students.
• A part of students is expecting to pass the examination instead of developing technical and core competencies.

The application of Competence Based Assessment at HCMUTE is one of many ways to change from teacher-centered training to student-centered training. Instead of concentrating on remembering knowledge, students have to apply knowledge to real-life situations. Students have good opportunities to develop their core competencies in the process of studying.

5 Conclusion

Competence Based Assessment (CBA) is one of very important components of competence-based teaching process. CBA links closely together with learning outcomes, content and teaching methods. Thus, the application of CBA to develop core competencies of students must be consistent with other components of the teaching process. This consistency will contribute to create a sustainable change in the quality of education in higher education institutions in Vietnam.

Lecturers as well as students need to change the way of teaching and learning in CBA. Instead of focusing on presenting and requiring students to remember knowledge, lecturers should design learning situations associated with practical contexts and encourage students to co-operate in dealing with these learning situations to construct technical competencies as well as core competencies by themselves. Through applying knowledge in dealing with real-world problems, students will learn how to define and solve problems effectively. Besides experiencing themselves in leaning situations, students also learn how to relate well to others to solve specific problems.

CBA provides good opportunities for students to support their development of core competencies gradually in the process of learning. The students in our class were encouraged to overcome the psychological barrier in sharing their opinions with others when they worked in small groups to implement learning projects. Their problem-solving and team work competencies have been developed through concrete evidence associated with flexible application of knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and personal attributes in implementing tasks or dealing with complex real-world problems.

References

Association of American colleges and universities (AACU) (n.d.). Problem Solving VALUE Rubric. Online: https://www.aacu.org/value/rubrics/problem-solving (retrieved 30.06.2016).

Bodewig, C. (2012). What skills are employers looking for in Vietnam’s workforce? Online: http://blogs.worldbank.org/eastasiapacific/what-skills-are-employers-looking-for-in-vietnam-s-workforce (retrieved 30.06.2016).

Bodewig, C., Badiani-Magnusson, R., Macdonald, K., Newhouse, D., & Rutkowski, J. (2013). Vietnam Development Report 2014 – Main report. Online: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2013/11/26/000461832_20131126115640/Rendered/PDF/829400AR0P13040Box0379879B00PUBLIC0.pdf (retrieved 30.06.2016).

Ehlers, U. (2013). Open Learning Cultures – A Guide to Quality, Evaluation, and Assessment for Future Learning. Berlin: Springer.

Deißinger, T. & Hellwig, S. (2011). Structures and functions of Competency-based Education and Training (CBET): a comparative perspective. Human Capacity Development (HCD) for Vocational Education and Training (Mannheim).

Department of Training and Workforce Development. Western Australia. (2013). Guidelines for assessing competence in VET (5th edn) 2013. Online: http://vetinfonet.dtwd.wa.gov.au/Resourcesandlinks/Documents/Publications2013/5%20Guidelines%20for%20assessing%20competence%20%205th%20Ed%20%282013%29.pdf (retrieved 30.06.2016).

European Commission (2013). Supporting teacher competence development for better learning outcomes. Online: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/school/doc/teachercomp_en.pdf (retrieved 30.06.2016).

Grosch, M. (2016). Competence Models and Key Competences. Competence development for the structural strengthening of the RCP network of the Regional Cooperation Programme to improve the training of TVET personnel in ASEAN countries in TVET (RECOTVET). Second Training in the Human Capacity Development activities.

Khanh, N.C. & Oanh, D.T. (2015). Test and Assessment in Education. Hanoi National University of Education Publishing House.

Kiem, T. (2015). Developing learners’ competencies in education. Proceedings of scientific works at the National Seminar: Psychology and Pedagogy with the development of learners’ attributes and competencies. World Publishing House. Vietnam.

Loc, N., Phuong, N.T.L., Cuong, D.X., Hoa.T.T.A.& Van, N.T.H. (2016). Methods, techniques to build standards in assessing reading and problem solving competencies. Vietnam Education Publishing House.

Nhut, H.T. & Trinh, D.T.M. (translators) (2009). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach. Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City Publishing House.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) (2014). Competency framework. Online: http://www.oecd.org/careers/competency_framework_en.pdf (retrieved 30.06.2016).

Polya, G. (n.d.). Polya’s Problem Solving Techniques. Online: https://math.berkeley.edu/~gmelvin/polya.pdf (retrieved 30.06.2016).

Prins, F. J., Nadolski, R.J., Berlanga, A. J., Drachsler, H., Hummel, H. G. K., & Koper, R. (2008). Competence Description for Personal Recommendations: The importance of identifying the complexity of learning and performance situations. Educational Technology & Society, 11 (3), 141-152. Online: http://www.ifets.info/journals/11_3/11.pdf (retrieved 30.06.2016).

Ry, V.T. & Que, D.X. (2015). Competence based assessment of Physics in High school. Journal of Educational Sciences, The Vietnam Institute of Educational Sciences. No 123.

The definition and selection of key competencies (Executive Summary). Online: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/35070367.pdf

Thuy, T.T.T., Khanh, N.C., Ninh, N.V., Huong, N.M., Anh, B.X., & Ha, L.T.T. (2015). Developing students’ competencies through integrated teaching (Episode 2). Hanoi National University of Education Publishing House. 

Wolf, A. (1995). Competence based assessment. Open University Press. Buckingham, Philadelphia.

Citation

Duong, T. K. O (2016). Developing core competencies of students through Competence Based Assessment at Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology and Education. In: TVET@Asia, issue 7, 1-17. Online: http://www.tvet-online.asia/issue7/duong_tvet7.pdf (retrieved 2.8.2016).